Sitting of 13 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSPORT BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    University Places
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he plans to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the places available in universities for students leaving school in the current year with appropriate A-level qualifications.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with principals and vice-chancellors about the funding of universities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is unable to be on the Front Bench for oral questions this afternoon.
    We meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals from time to time to discuss a range of matters affecting universities. My right hon. Friend and I intend to meet members of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals later this month.
    Mr. Wicks: Has the Minister noted the concern of the universities and university authorities that, this year, some well-qualified young people with good A-level grades will not he able to go to university? If that assumption is true—I ask him to confirm or reject it—what message does that give to young people who have worked hard but cannot get into university? What message does it give to young people when we need well-trained and well-educated youngsters?
    Mr. Boswell: The first message that I would give young people is to remind them that student numbers, on a full-time equivalent basis, have expanded by 46 per cent. during the past four years. We have more students and a higher proportion of our young people in higher education than ever before. There is some consolidation at present, which is an opportunity for universities to catch breath after rapid expansion and to assert the importance of the full quality of entry standards, to which we attach considerable importance.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister confirm that the Higher Education Funding Council is encouraging universities not to take arts students this year, and that it is spending up to £3·5 million encouraging them not to do so, as a kind of academic set-aside? What does that say for the Government's policy towards broad education across a range of subjects?
    Is this not the first time in the United Kingdom that a Government have decided to restrict the number of students taking courses, and to channel students away from a broad range of courses—including arts, which are very valuable—into more technical subjects?
    Mr. Boswell: It is difficult to please everyone on such subjects, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the changes in tuition fees earlier this year referred to expansion at the margin beyond the funded number of places. There is no question of prohibiting people from going for arts or humanities subjects—far from it. There is a higher level of participation in those subjects than ever before. If the funding council, which has discretion in the matter, decides to set aside a proportion of money to meet the particular problems of institutions that have expanded so quickly, that is its decision, but I think that it is a prudent one.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend meets the principals and vice-chancellors, will he pay a particular tribute to the work of the former polytechnics, such as Middlesex university in my constituency? Will he also draw attention to the fact that, three years ago, those people who are complaining about a shortage of places said that the introduction of student loans would result in a reduction in the numbers of people going to university?
    Mr. Boswell: I shall, as ever, do both those things.
    Mr. James Hill: When my hon. Friend visits Southampton, he will be able to recall some of the whingeing words of Opposition Members when he sees the college of higher education, La Sainte Unione and the university of Southampton moving ahead with increased numbers of students, and expanding on other sites.
    Mr. Boswell: I cannot wait to receive an invitation from my hon. Friend, and I will do my best to respond to it positively as soon as possible.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Minister meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, will he discuss the dramatic increase in student numbers but the absence of corresponding increases in the numbers of lecturers, and lecturers' concern that there could be a slump in standards?
    Mr. Boswell: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is certainly the case that numbers of students have expanded faster than the number of lecturers. It varies from place to place and situation to situation and, in some respect, it can be interpreted as productivity.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend telephone the Secretary of State this afternoon and wish him a speedy return to good health, and remind him that it is a source of great pride among Conservative Members that this country spends a higher proportion of its gross domestic product on higher education than either Germany or Japan, righting a long-term situation that has needed correction for some time?
    Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the wise remarks of my hon. Friend will help speed up the return to good health of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister make an early response to the letter that he has received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals asking for an extension to the consultation process about the funding of student unions to 1 November following the statement made on 1 July?
    The Minister was careful to talk about full-time equivalent places when he answered my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). Is it right to fund some universities for not filling full-time places and, at the same time, refuse to assist the University of Central England in Birmingham, which is undergoing a vast expansion of part-time places for which there are no taxpayers' contribution to fees or mandatory grants and is funding them free for students who happen to be unemployed? Will he do something about the unfair mismatch of the funding regulations between full-time and part-time university students?
    Mr. Boswell: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that the letter we received this morning will be carefully considered, and we will respond to it as soon as possible.
    The hon. Gentleman has made clear in the past the views expressed in his second point. We have no proposals for the complete restructuring of the system of academic support at present. We recognise that we have greatly expanded the numbers in higher education, significantly in the new universities, including the ones to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as well as the older universities.
    We have also quickly expanded, and are continuing to expand, further education. It is always possible to make suggestions, and they will be considered. We believe that we are delivering the goods in the structure that we have in place.

    Teacher Testing
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to test teachers.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): Under the appraisals regulations 1991, all teachers in maintained schools must be subject to an appraisal of their performance by 1995.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that teachers should be given a simple test to tell us the difference between the Labour party conference, the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Teachers conference? They are all a lot of hooligans who jump up and down and sulk when they are asked to do any work. Is the Minister aware that a certain hon. Member who has driven us mad over the years has been learning to drive this morning? Would not it be a good idea if that whole lot over there, and some of the teachers had L plates round their necks?
    Mr. Forth: I welcome my hon. Friend's sound endorsement of the principle of teacher appraisal. It must be right that teachers undergo a form of appraisal in a properly structured and agreed form, but I am not sure whether that includes the questions that my hon. Friend suggested. Appraisals should be carried out to assure the
    816
    highest quality of teaching, by identifying the full potential of teachers and meeting their training, retraining and support needs. That is the objective.
    Mr. Steinberg: In response to that predictably silly outburst from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), does the Minister agree that the hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in passing the present standard assessment tasks, and does he also agree that the vast majority of today's teachers are far better skilled than they were in the days when the hon. Gentleman went to school?
    Now that the opinions of teachers on testing have been vindicated, would the Minister please listen to the teachers during consultation over the new arrangements for primary school teachers?
    Mr. Forth: It is certainly the case that properly structured and developed appraisal of teachers must be a major contribution to the quality of our education. It is a matter of some regret that a union that is not totally unconnected with the hon. Gentleman is persisting in opposing the principle of teacher appraisal. I know not why it is doing so—it is for the union to explain—but the rest of us are entitled to be a little suspicious.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about teacher appraisal. To enable teachers to pass his appraisal system, will he place further emphasis during teacher training on more practical classroom skills and more subject-based knowledge?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has unerringly put his finger on one of the main thrusts of the Secretary of State's proposals. Of course it must be right that all training of teachers must lay the maximum emphasis on practical classroom skills, so that we do not rely entirely on paper qualifications, important though they may be, but identify the ability of teachers to educate in the classroom. That would emanate from my hon. Friend's sensible suggestions.
    Mr. Don Foster: Following the recent revelations about masonic lodges linked to schools in Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire, does the Minister think that teachers and governors should be tested on their membership of secret societies?
    Mr. Forth: Given that we are sitting in a Chamber which probably contains more secret and semi-secret societies than any other, I should be careful before embarking on throwing stones from this glass house.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: In connection with teacher training and assessment, does my hon. Friend agree that schools should be given more time and a greater role in planning and assessing such courses? Does he agree that, in that connection, there should be less stress on educational and sociological theory and more stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said, on subject knowledge, classroom skills and, in particular, classroom discipline?
    Mr. Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend shows yet again his enormous experience in this area, to which I defer. It must be right that the balance between theoretical and academic training, which must always have its place, and practical hands-on experience in the classroom is constantly reassessed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will fully support the recommendations and proposals that my right hon.

    817
    Friend the Secretary of State has made recently, which we are now developing very much in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: As the Minister has acknowledged that the quality of teachers is important, why are the Government proposing to dilute the professionalism of teachers by the introduction of a semi-trained mums' army? Although we all want mature entrants into teaching, surely it is important that those who are entrusted with our children's education are highly educated and well trained. Why are Ministers gambling with our children's future by more crackpot experiments?
    Mr. Forth: I approach this in sorrow rather than anger. It is sad that the hon. Lady should assume that the possession of a paper qualification automatically gives someone skills in classroom teaching and, worse, that she should suggest that people who do not possess academic qualifications, such as graduate skills, are in some way less than good in the classroom.
    The reality is that 50 per cent. of teachers are graduates. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that half of all teachers are incompetent and unable to operate successfully in the classroom? Our proposals are that intelligent and mature people with two A-levels and considerable experience with children should surely be the sort of people that we want to encourage to come into our classrooms and deal with our young people—rather than relying entirely on, let us say, a 21-year-old with a narrow degree subject, who the hon. Lady seems to suggest would be better qualified.

    National Curriculum and Testing
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about his review of the national curriculum and testing.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): Sir Ron Dearing, who is conducting the review, has held a series of regional conferences for head teachers and has consulted widely among teachers' organisations and other interested bodies. The Government expect his first report later this month, which will take into account all views expressed.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend accept that many responsible and moderate members of the teaching profession, while welcoming the principle of the national curriculum and testing, have expressed legitimate concern about the bureaucracy associated with their implementation? Will he assure the House that not only Sir Ron Dearing but Ministers will listen to constructive criticism and comments from the profession, with a view to improving that state of affairs?
    Mr. Squire: I hope that hon. Members of all parties will endorse the wise words of my hon. Friend. Sir Ron Dearing is setting out to tackle the major criticisms that have been expressed by teachers and their unions. I am confident that he will produce a report around which the majority of our teachers can unite to restore order and proper teaching in our schools.
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister's noble Friend Baroness Blatch wrote to me the other day in reply to a letter from an able and respected headmaster in my constituency who had submitted a detailed assessment of the Government's
    818
    approach to testing. The noble Lady said that "some" of my constituent's comments were unfounded. Would the Minister ask his noble Friend to publish her comments about those criticisms that she accepted?
    Mr. Squire: The House will recognise that I have a small problem in trying to answer a question that refers to a letter which I have not seen. The Government will publish their response to the Dearing review as soon as possible after that review, and I would expect that that response will cover the type of issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming majority of the nation's parents believe that the national curriculum and testing are essential for good education? Does he further accept that the majority of Conservative Members welcome the setting up of the Dearing review, look forward to its findings, and hope that those findings will be accepted by the teaching profession and implemented without any further problems?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I echo them. Testing and the national curriculum have raised standards in schools—[Laughter.] I hear laughter from Opposition Members. That is strange and sad. Testing and the national curriculum have raised standards, and the majority of teachers share the Government's wish that standards continue to be improved.

    EC Students
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement on arrangements for EC students pursuing third level courses in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Boswell: United Kingdolm higher education institutions have a strong tradition of internationalism and openness. Their popularity with students from other countries is a welcome indicator of the quality of the education they offer. EC action programmes have provided an added impetus. We fully meet our EC obligations to provide equal rights of access to higher education. Eligible students from other member states studying here may receive an award to cover the cost of their course fees to a specified maximum. Reciprocal rights apply to United Kingdom students studying elsewhere in the EC.
    Mr. Trimble: Have the number of students involved, and the expense, increased substantially in the past few years? I understand that the cost of the awards that the Minister mentioned was over £41 million last year, and the cost to the education system may have been somewhat higher. Does the Minister agree that the burden does not fall equally throughout the country but on certain regions? Will steps be taken to compensate those regions for the burden that they have to bear, and will he make other provisions for students from those regions who consequently find it more difficult to get a place?
    Mr. Boswell: There is undoubtedly a cost in grants of the order the hon. Gentleman suggests, although it is a gross cost. Against that must be set the large income

    819
    received from overseas countries as a result of overseas students coming here. That amount has been estimated at £1·5 billion.
    The regional implications depend on the admissions policies of the institutions in question and on the policies of the various funding councils and their equivalent in Northern Ireland. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to their attention.

    Further Education Funding
    Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the distinction between local education authority budgets and further education funding; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boswell: The Government will keep under review the spending needs of local education authorities and of the Further Education Funding Council in the light of their respective statutory responsibilities.
    Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister accept that, since 1979, funding per student has been reduced by 22 per cent., according to Library figures? In those circumstances, does he accept that community colleges that are caught between the two stools of further education funding and local authorities' restricted budgets face a budgetary crisis?
    Mr. Boswell: I should prefer to study the hon. Gentleman's figures at leisure—and I will do so. I am surprised that he did not acknowledge the huge expansion that we are carrying out in further education, to increase the number of students participating by 25 per cent. over the next three years, and to provide in the coming year £750 per full-time student place in further education.
    The hon. Gentleman's point about the interface between further education and local authority provision is made from time to time. This is the first year and, broadly speaking, it has gone well. There have been one or two problems, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no black hole of funding and no reduction in the responsibilities of the parties involved.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given the huge planned increase in the numbers in further education during the next few years, is my hon. Friend aware of the great welcome that the principals of further education colleges have given to their greater freedom, from April of this year, to manage their own affairs? Will he ensure that the Educational Assets Board gives further education insitutions enough control over their assets, especially when there are disputes between further education colleges and district councils—there was such a case in Kidderminster in my constituency—to ensure that they can fulfil their responsibilities?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is right: there has been a positive response in general to the changes that we have made in the structure of the further education sector and to the indpendence that we have given to the various corporations. My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on cases involving the Educational Assets Board, which is responsible for dividing assets, but I will draw his remarks to its attention.

    Discretionary Student Grants
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has any plans to alter arrangements for the award of discretionary student grants.
    Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend keeps the administration of student awards under periodic review. Any plans for changes in this field would be announced at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Minister agree to ring-fence funding for discretionary student awards? I and other hon. Members know of many students who cannot study medicine, law, music or other courses that they want to follow. It is crazy for society to deny them the opportunity to acquire those extra skills. I warn the Minister "Don't dare blame local education authorities, after the Government have savaged their budgets in recent year."
    Mr. Boswell: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says for a moment—but, then, I usually cannot. The fact is that we continue to fund local education authorities for their responsibilities to schools and to all other aspects of education. We will continue so to do.
    At the moment, we are looking at a pattern of anecdote, rumour and innuendo about the withdrawal of certain services. For the short term, there is no point in giving local authorities discretion and then trying to take it away from them by fettering that discretion. In the slightly more medium term, and in view of the concern that has been expressed, we have joined with the Gulbenkian and Sir John Cass Foundations, asking them independently and throughly to review the current state of provision. If they have any messages for us, we will consider them carefully and quickly.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that some Labour authorities, such as Kirklees, are refusing to give discretionary grants, so young students who have taken law degrees cannot then go on to law school or to the Council for Legal Education? They have degrees, but they cannot practise. What action can he take to help resolve that?
    Mr. Boswell: The nature of discretionary grants is such that LEAs must use their discretion when choosing whether to award them. We continue to fund them—[Interruption.]—whatever the Opposition may bray. If they want the figures, I can give them to them. If a local authority decides that it is not going to give any awards at all, that would be tantamount to a withdrawal of discretion, and would indeed be a serious matter. If my hon. Friend has evidence to that effect, I shall be pleased to consider it.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is not it staggering that the Minister claims that he has the figures, yet he accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) of anecdotes, rumour and innuendo, while his colleagues tell him that discretionary awards have, in effect, been abolished by local authorities? We are talking not simply about Labour authorities but about authorities up and down the country, and the Minister should know that that is the case. He should not come to the House and claim ignorance.
    Let me ask the Minister a specific question. What will he do about those authorities? They tell me that cuts in Government money mean that they have to cut

    821
    discretionary grants. No discretionary grants means no opportunity. The responsibility lies with the Minister. What will he do about it?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman can start by being a bit less arrogant about the Gulbenkian report unless or until he has seen it. What on earth is the point of commissioning the report or paying part of its costs if we are not prepared to consider what it says and take a view in the light of its findings? The hon. Gentleman said that authorities are cutting back. I happen to know—this reflects the change of political control, although the decision was taken before—that my local authority has expanded its provision in discretionary awards. That is an anecdote.
    As the hon. Gentleman would like to have the figures, I can tell him that we have increased total expenditure to local authorities by 2·6 per cent. this year for education. That is above the increase in pupil numbers. Taking into account the level of pay settlements, which is required under current policy, that should be sufficient to continue to fund discretionary awards. If local authorities choose not to do that, it is their choice. It is not a decision which we have either imposed on them or encouraged them to take.

    Examinations
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been undertaken by his Department into the relationship between examinations and scholarly attainment.
    Mr. Robin Squire: None, but I share the widespread view that performance in examinations provides both a measure of current achievement and an indicator of future potential.
    Mr. French: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that the loudest complaints about exams often come from those people who do not have to take them but who profess their interest in educational standards? Does he accept that examinations are not only a measurement, as he just indicated, but provide a useful spur to performance at all ages and are an essential component of any good education system?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is a little strange that all the evidence that we have shows that, far from complaining, school children have enjoyed taking the standard assessment tasks and that school attendance has risen on the days when tests are set. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the spur that tests and examinations provide. They give children a sense of purpose and achievement, which undoubtedly helps to raise standards in our schools.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: The Minister has access to voluminous research that establishes that A-levels are a terrible predictor of subsequent degree performance. Why are they used to ration entry to higher education?
    Mr. Squire: A study by Smithers and Robinson in 1989 showed a correlation between success in A-levels and degree performance. I am pleased that it also showed that mature students who lack A-level qualifications can perform as well as A-level entrants.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the conduct and marking of SATs should now be passed to examination boards, which perform professionally in that area? That would take the SATs away from being a burden on teachers to mark and take the setting of those important tests away from the bureaucracy which has been dealing with them so far.
    Mr. Squire: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will know that Sir Ron Dearing is addressing that issue within his overall review. It would be wrong for me to anticipate that. I look forward, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, to seeing Sir Ron's comments on that aspect.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Can the Minister tell the House who in the Government will be responsible for this year's response to the GCSE examination results? Does the Minister recall last year's fiasco when the junior Minister praised the GCSE results and, a few days later, the Secretary of State rubbished them and the efforts of those who had taken the exams? Will the Minister assure the House that Ministers will not undermine the achievement of those who have taken GCSEs this year and that credit will be given where it is due—to the teachers and children who have worked so hard? Will he guarantee that Ministers will not rubbish those results this year?
    Mr. Squire: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools that the hon. Lady has entirely misunderstood what he said. Of course we welcome the improvement in GCSE results which has been seen recently. We look forward very much to those upward trends continuing and we will, of course, expect teachers to have carried out their responsibilities in that respect. I look forward to the hon. Lady joining the Government in seeing ever-higher standards achieved in those examinations as well.
    Sir Anthony Grant: If such research is carried out, will my hon. Friend look into a complaint that I have received from certain dons in Cambridge—that the award of first-class degrees is made far too easily these days? They tell me that many of the people at other universities who receive firsts are the sort of people who would not have obtained their matriculation in the old days.
    Mr. Squire: Despite the fairly wide-ranging responsibilities that I carry, I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not carry that responsibility. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education has heard my hon. Friend's interesting comments and I have a strange feeling that he will reflect on them in the immediate future.

    English and Technical Studies Testing
    Ms Gordon: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the cost of external examiners for the current year's English and technical studies tests.
    Mr. Robin Squire: External marking is not a requirement for the 1993 tests in English, technology or other subjects. My right hon. Friend has asked Sir Ron Dearing to consider the merits of this option for the tests for 11 and 14-year-olds in 1994 and subsequently.
    Ms Gordon: My question was what has been the cost of the external examiners for this year's tests. Is the Minister

    823
    aware that I have received letters from head teachers in Tower Hamlets saying that they did not have the equipment in place to cover the areas required for testing in technological studies and that they received the details so late that their money had already been committed for the financial year? Instead of wasting money on publicity campaigns and external examiners to force English tests down the throats of unwilling teachers, would not it have been better to spend that money providing the tools for teaching our children? Will the Minister and the Secretary of State now admit that they were wrong about the tests and stop attacking the teachers? Education Ministers come and go, but it is the teachers who are the mainstay of our education system.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Lady has justified her reputation as being part of the jurassic tendency in educational terms. In taking but one element of the hon. Lady's comments, the adult literacy and basic skills unit recently reported that one third of students entering further education colleges did not have an adequate command of English to take advantage of their courses. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in regretting and deploring that fact and in looking forward to supporting the tests which will enable us to improve the standards of pupils of all ages.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that external examination has shown itself to be an excellent way of ensuring that British universities maintain objective testing and standards throughout Europe? Does not he think it quite extraordinary that the Labour party consistently opposes everything that will improve testing, objectivity and a raising of standards in secondary schools?
    Mr. Squire: I can only say to my hon. Friend, who is of course absolutely right, that I am not surprised. Time and again, when faced with a choice, the Labour party sides not with the consumer—in this case, the parents or pupils—but always with the producers. In this particular case, the Labour party is on a losing wicket and it will come to see that that is not helping to improve standards in our schools.

    Standard Spending Assessment (Merseyside)
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the standard spending assessment for education for each of the Merseyside metropolitan authorities for each of the last two years.
    Mr. Forth: The figures for 1992–93 were as follows: Knowsley, £79 million; Liverpool, £215 million; St. Helens, £73 million; Sefton, £110 million; and Wirral, £136 million. For 1993–94 the figures will be: Knowsley, £71 million; Liverpool, £199 million; St. Helens, £62 million; Sefton, £96 million; and Wirral, £122 million.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he acknowledge that the figures he has just given show that school children in St. Helens get a very raw deal from the Government's SSAs? Will he explain to the parents of St. Helens—preferably in plain and simple English—why Liverpool and Knowsley are allocated £500,000 more to run a 1,000 pupil secondary school than the neighbouring borough of St. Helens?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. Education SSAs are based mainly on pupil numbers. Recently, pupil numbers in St. Helens have
    824
    been falling. That is one of the reasons. The other is that St. Helens comes out rather badly from the additional educational needs—AEN—index, which is part of the educational SSA mechanism. The good news for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents is that we are conducting a wide-ranging review of the methodology and mechanisms of SSAs and the AEN index. We will seek to update them and make them more relevant, fairer and more reflective of needs than in the past. I cannot predict what the outcome will be for St. Helens, or any other authority, but the hon. Gentleman and his constituents can be sure that, at the end of that process, all will be seen to be fair and even-handed.

    Trainee Teachers
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to give trainee teachers more time in the classroom learning practical skills.
    Mr. Forth: The tougher standards that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last year for the training of secondary teachers will ensure that postgraduate students spend two thirds of their time in schools. Our recent proposals for reform of primary teacher training also involve a significant increase in the time to be spent in schools.
    Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that good teacher training should be a balance between education theory and practical skills? Does he further agree that, in the past, too much attention has been paid to education theory and that, in the future, more attention should be paid to practical skills, which are best learnt in the classroom?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has put succinctly the philosophy underlying the proposals that my right hon. Friend made recently. Although they are out to consultation at the moment, I believe that, on mature reflection, most people will agree with my hon. Friend that the balance between academic training and classroom experience has probably not been correct in the past. That is something which we will seek to correct. I hope that all hon. Members and people outside the House who are interested will take the opportunity to reply during the consultations that we have recently initiated on this important subject.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: In accepting that there must be a correct balance between the theory of learning processes and the actual practice of teaching, does the Minister agree that his Department's idea for a one-year course for adults who will teach children at the most critical stage of the learning process is totally inadequate? If the majority view of the consultation that he is undertaking is that one year is not enough, will he accept that professional opinion?
    Mr. Forth: Of course we will look carefully, as ever, at the responses to the consultation paper. The reality is that, at the moment, many graduates enter teaching, following a one-year degree postgraduate certificate of education course, with a degree that may have no relevance to the primary curriculum. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman has leapt to that conclusion without properly considering the strength of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend in the consultation paper. When the hysteria shown by Opposition Members has settled down, it will be shown,

    825
    on reflection and consideration, that our proposals are sensible and practical and in the interests of teaching and education.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will give consideration to increasing the sparsity factor in future calculations of standard spending assessments.
    Mr. Forth: The education elements of SSAs are currently under review. The review will extend to the sparsity allowance, but, at this stage, it is too soon to say what the outcome will be.
    Mr. Gill: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of giving sufficient weight to the sparsity factor, adequately to reflect the fact that the economies of scale available in urban areas are simply not available to sparsely populated rural areas?
    Mr. Forth: We have long recognised the sparsity allowance's relevance. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in ensuring that his county's interests have been fully represented in our consideration of that factor. As I said earlier, we are looking comprehensively at SSAs and the additional educational needs factors, including the sparsity allowance, to satisfy ourselves, education authorities, parents and pupils throughout the country that we fairly reflect the needs and balances of schools and authorities in the mechanisms for paying moneys and providing resources to them. Everybody in this Chamber will be happy with the result of our consideration, which we hope will be finalised and available in the autumn.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are delighted to welcome him back from Tokyo and congratulate him on his success? Is not that in stark contrast to the lot opposite, who are horrified that their leader has just come back from Bournemouth? Did my right hon. Friend's father, at the height of his career as a trapeze artist, do as many somersaults as the Leader of the Opposition, the wriggler from Monklands, East?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome home. We did have a successful meeting in Tokyo and, from what I hear, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had a rather less successful meeting in Bournemouth.
    Mr. John Smith: Following the vote in the House last night in which the Prime Minister and his colleagues voted to impose value added tax on the heating bills of millions
    826
    of pensioners and families, does not he think that he should now apologise to the British people for betraying the election pledges that he made during the last election?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise that matter today. This week's edition of "Labour Party News" contains an article with the heading
    "Sending your comments to Chris Smith MP".
    It asks:
    "In what ways can economic policy be developed to encourage environmental protection?
    You might consider: Taxation Policy (eg energy tax 2026;)".
    Mr. Smith: The Prime Minister clearly does not want to hear a reference to his VAT commitment. Let me remind him what he said in the "Conservative Campaign Guide"—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not want to hear it. The last thing that they want to hear about is the "Conservative Campaign Guide". It attacked the Labour party for what it called irresponsible scares about VAT and said:
    "The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government has no intention of raising VAT."
    Why was that said in the election?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know his own policy and I offer him my copy of "Labour Party News". My comment was in response to Labour's charges that we intended to raise the standard rate to 22 per cent., which we were not intending.
    Mr. Battle: You lied to them.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I clearly heard the hon. Gentleman's unparliamentary language. Will he now withdraw it?
    Mr. Battle: I understand that the expression is "economical with the truth", Madam Speaker.
    The Prime Minister: That was a typically cheap withdrawal. Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition is not being remotely open about his position. Quite apart from this week's admission that the Labour party was considering VAT on fuel—and still is—in its policy review document, "Looking to the Future", the Labour party stated:
    "Zero-rating should remain on fares, books, food and children's clothing."
    It specifically excluded fuel. That fact, allied to the document from which I quoted earlier, constitutes the clearest illustration that that is Labour party policy.
    Before the Liberal leader looks too smug, may I say that in his document "Costing the Earth" the Liberal Democrats advocated a tax on energy and, failing that, said:
    "We would … press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."
    Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will go back to Christchurch and tell them that.
    Mr. John Smith: If the Prime Minister wants to wriggle out of the "Conservative Campaign Guide" commitment, let me remind him of what he said to the House on 28 January 1992. He said:
    "There will he no VAT increase."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808]

    827
    Did the Prime Minister say that? Does he deny that he said it? Does he also deny that he has cynically betrayed an election pledge?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is embarrassed because he walked into an open hole. That quote of mine is clearly related to the 17 per cent. rate of VAT, which we have not changed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of that. He may wriggle and wriggle, but this week's edition of "Labour Party News' shows clearly what the Labour party policy was and is.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that racial tolerance and compassion underlie the British character and that that is reflected in the natural desire of many childless couples to want to offer a good and loving home to children, regardless of race, colour or creed? Is not it time to end the shameful political correctness of some officials who seek to discourage that?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's adoption policy will be guided by common sense and the interests of the child. There will be no house room for political correctness.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong feeling in Wales about the need to give the Welsh language official status alongside the English language in Wales—a policy which is supported across party political boundaries? Is he aware that a monolingual French label on a wine bottle or similar product in Wales is official in Wales? A label in Greek only is valid in Wales, but a label in the Welsh language is not valid because the British Government do not recognise the Welsh language as an official language. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to change that policy at the Report stage of the Welsh Language Bill this week?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's Welsh Language Bill represents an important addition to support and encouragement for the Welsh language in Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman has canvassed and fought hard for the Bill and I know that he appreciated the fact that it was produced. We believe that Welsh already enjoys official status in Wales. A general declaration in the Bill would have no practical effect and would probably only increase legal uncertainty.
    Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason that there is one member, one vote in the trade union movement was that the Government gave financial encouragement for postal ballots and actively helped democracy in the trade unions? Given that the campaign of the Leader of the Opposition to introduce one member, one vote in the Labour party will clearly either be fudged or abandoned, what measures will the Government—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat for a moment. The Prime Minister is not responsible for Opposition policies. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his question.
    Mr. Milligan: I am grateful for your correction. I am asking what action the Government will take, similar to that taken to encourage democracy in the trade unions, to encourage democracy in the Labour party.
    The Prime Minister: Democracy in the Labour party would be a welcome addition to our public life. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) appears to be prepared to fight the battle for one man, one vote. He also appears to be retreating from it.
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Roche: Will the Prime Minister break his reputation for stubbornness and listen to the Social Security Advisory Committee when it says that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will have a disproportionate effect on the incomes of the poor?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady will know—we have stated it often enough in the House—we have made it clear that extra help will be provided in advance for people who are vulnerable, to meet the costs of VAT on fuel. That help will be in addition to the automatic increase in pensions and other benefits to reflect the impact of any increase in the retail prices index. I have made that clear repeatedly and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Perhaps the hon. Lady would either care to listen to that statement now or read the innumerable occasions on which it has been made clear.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating British manufacturing industry on the figures published today on manufacturing output? Does he agree that that is a sign that Britain is moving into recovery and that, under his strong leadership, not only will Britain's economy improve but our party will emerge victorious at the end of this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: They were extremely good figures this morning. The increase in manufacturing output reported this morning is the largest monthly increase for four years. Clearly, that is good news and it bodes well for British manufacturing. But it is only one of a large number of signs that the economy is recovering—retail sales are up, car registrations are up, confidence is up and unemployment is down.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the Prime Minister seen today's leader article in The Times which refers to the instability in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the unease among Unionists? Does he accept that that instability has been increased by the Labour party's so-called discussion document, Dick Spring's revelations and the talks between emissaries of the British Government and the Provisional IRA? Will we now move from parrot calls for round table talks to restoring accountable democracy in Northern Ireland at all levels by direct action, rather than diplomatic dithering?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I share the views that he expressed about the Labour party's proposals for Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Leader of the Opposition about this matter some time ago, but, so far as I am aware, he has not yet received a reply.
    As for talks in the future, I hope that we shall be able to reach the outcome that the hon. Gentleman has in mind as a result of the resumption of talks. We hope that they will be able to resume speadily and, once they resume, we hope that they will be successful.

    Bromsgrove
    Mr. Thomason: To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Bromsgrove.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Rover cars, parts of which are made in the Bromsgrove constituency, which announced yesterday that it had increased sales world wide? Does he agree that
    830
    its achievement bodes well and is a good advertisement for British quality, British workers and an expanding British economy?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rover, which has increased its sales in Europe significantly. To have done that in the difficult trading conditions of Europe speaks volumes for its pricing and the quality of its products. Total car production has risen by about 11 per cent. and production of computers and related equipment is up by 8 per cent. There is no doubt that British industry is becoming more competitive and that British manufacturing industry in particular is beginning to penetrate new markets in quite a substantial way.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: What would the Prime Minister say to the residents of Bromsgrove and nearby Birmingham who are sceptical about his claim that the imposition of VAT on fuel is an energy tax when that tax is also to be imposed on standing charges and there is no proposal to reinvest the revenue gained in energy conservation measures?
    The Prime Minister: I would say what I said moments ago to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) about the reimbursement that would be available.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request for a statement to be made today about the funding of the west coast main line, a subject of enormous importance to many hon. Members?
Through the device of a written reply, a statement has been put out by the Government which fundamentally changes the nature of funding for major infrastructure projects in this country. It seems that the Government are no longer to have direct responsibility for such projects and that they are to become a sideline for Hambros bank. Such information should not be given in a written reply but should be the subject of a statement made to the House.
Madam Speaker: I have not been told that any Minister wishes to make a statement today.
Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will be aware, the foundation treaty of this Parliament is the Act of Union 1707. That Act contains a number of provisions, including article 21, which protects the rights and privileges of Scottish local government.
While it is true that local government in Scotland has changed a number of times since 1707, such change has always come about by way of consensus or royal commission. Indeed, on the last occasion, in 1972–73, there was no division on either Second Reading or Third Reading of the relevant measure and the vast majority of Scottish hon. Members supported the generality of the proposals. It is unprecedented for Scottish local government to be gerrymandered, using the backing of English votes in the House of Commons.
My point of order for you, Madam Speaker—perhaps you will wish to take time to consider it—is whether the process on which, it seems, we are about to engage is consistent with the Act of Union. It is true that some of us have less confidence than have others in that Act, but only last year the Prime Minister considered the matter important enough to describe it as an issue which transcended the general election campaign.
Perhaps you will consider the matter, Madam Speaker, and give your opinion before tomorrow, when we embark on what I suspect will be the first of many debates and votes in the House on the issue of Scottish local government and the attempt of the Secretary of State for Scotland to gerrymander it for his own purposes.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member's remarks on what seems to be a complex matter. I shall give a considered response in the most appropriate way in due course.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker; I seek your help. Perhaps you will disclose whether the Home Secretary has asked for permission to make a statement about Sunday trading.
I appreciate from information that I have received that a paper will be published today and that it will be available to hon. Members at 3.30. As the subject is so emotive, and in view of the fact that we have debated it in the House continually since 1986—I took a long time preparing a private Member's Bill which was debated this year—I
832
should have thought that the Home Secretary, in view of all the promises that were made by his predecessors, would at least have afforded the House an opportunity to debate the subject by way of questions following a statement before issuing four options, the details of which he has never disclosed to the House in any way, shape or form in the past 12 months.
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member and the House that it is not for me to allow Ministers to make statements. Ministers tell me when they wish to make statements, and no Minister has told me of his or her desire to make a statement today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the time of Mr. Speaker Weatherill—certainly in the days of Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, and probably before that—your predecessors were doubtless irritated by requests under what was then Standing Order No. 9. However irritated they became, however, they did not refuse to hear applications relating to serious subjects.
I do not wish to be impertinent, Madam Speaker, but some of the most experienced of us were wondering on what authority in "Erskine May" a Speaker can refuse to hear an application under what is now Standing Order No. 20. I think that it is probably a habit introduced by Mr. Speaker Weatherill.
It can hardly be denied that what Mr. Rolf Ekens is doing in Baghdad is a matter of importance; it is certainly urgent; and it is now definite. It would be indelicate to challenge the ruling preventing my colleagues and me from being heard, but we wonder what the precedent is.
Madam Speaker: The matter in question must be urgent, and it must relate to new developments, such as a change of policy. I do not wish to discuss applications made to me in the House; the hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of Parliament, and he knows that we do not do that.
The hon. Gentleman has submitted a Standing Order No. 20 application relating to the United Nations representative in Baghdad. The United Nations representative has not even reached Baghdad yet, and I therefore cannot consider an application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to the point of order put my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the embargo on White Papers that operates in the House until 3.30 pm. This morning, the Home Office briefed the press about the contents of a White Paper, setting out the options. It strikes me as extremely unfair that elected Members of Parliament should be denied information until 3.30 pm, while the press can obtain it in the morning. Surely, if there is to be an embargo, it should apply to everyone, but especially to the press. The information should be released to Members of Parliament at the same time as it is released to the press, at the very least. The Home Office should not give the press a privileged position to the disadvantage of Members of Parliament.
You represent the interests of the House, Madam Speaker. Will you make hon. Members' feelings clear to the Home Office and the Home Secretary, and support those feelings yourself?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for the Speaker but for the appropriate Minister to determine when official papers should be made available. As the House is aware, I deprecate the making of statements to the press outside the House, and I shall continue to make my views known.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you have the interests of Back Benchers at heart. I hope that you will not mind my raising the matter mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). You have said that, for an application under Standing Order No. 20 to be granted, the issue involved must be urgent; but is there not a distinction to be drawn between an application that is made and one that is granted?
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that he has written me a long letter about the matter, which I have not had an opportunity to read. I hope that he will do me the courtesy of allowing me to read it so that I can respond appropriately.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Evidence will show that, before 1989, applications under Standing Order No. 9—now Standing Order No. 20—were fairly frequent. Everyone knows what happened then : as a result of the televising of our proceedings, the powers-that-be got together and decided that applications under Standing Order No. 20 should take place in television prime time. Pressures were brought to bear, and as a result Mr. Speaker Weatherill changed the system.
Today and yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wanted to raise a matter of prime importance. Five years ago, his application would undoubtedly have been granted. Anyone who has been around here long enough to know is aware that television changed the system. Hon. Members should understand why their applications are now being denied.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it a similar point of order?
Mr. Faulds: Absolutely. Some of us who have been here even longer remember that in the old days there was absolutely no way in which a Standing Order No. 9—now a Standing Order No. 20—having been refused, could even have been raised within the House. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that you go back to the old practice.
Madam Speaker: I tend to be rather old-fashioned, and I would like to do that. I look at Standing Order No. 20 applications on their merits. I cannot allow the proceedings of the House to be changed because a Member makes to me a Standing Order No. 20 application which is not particularly important, on which there is no new development, and which is not urgent. I look at Standing Order No. 20 applications in those three lights, and I will continue to deal with them in that way.

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

Statutory Instruments, &c.
  SEA FISHERIES
  That the Third Country Fishing (Enforcement) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1197) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS
  That the Diseases of Animals (Therapeutic Substances) (Revocation) Order 1993 (S.I., 1993, No. 1331) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

Pensioners' Equality
3.40 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to harmonise the retirement age at 60 for both women and men; to provide for the state retirement pension to be linked to average earnings and to be universally available; and for connected purposes.
It is my pleasure to seek leave to bring in the Pensioners' Equality Bill, which is a very short and simple Bill. It is very timely because there is a great debate raging about the future of the state old-age pension and, indeed, of the welfare state itself. My concern is that this debate is increasingly being conducted on late night television shows and in the pages of the newspaper broadsheets between experts of varying degree, all of whom fundamentally agree that there should be a reduction in the level of state expenditure on the old-age pension and an increase in private provision.
My Bill moves in exactly the opposite direction. It is not about privatisation or reduction; it is fundamentally about decency in a civilised society. To my mind, that means looking at the very serious degree of poverty in which many elderly people in this country have to live at the present time. There is something deeply humiliating about people who have spent a lifetime at work, in an office, in a factory, on a farm or at home having to wait around in a supermarket to get the cheap bread at five o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, or to queue at the greengrocers for the mouldy vegetables that are sold off at the end of the working day. There is something fundamentally immoral about that.
The Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are both dealing with the problem of the £50 billion Government borrowing requirement. That borrowing requirement, I hasten to add, has been brought about by a Conservative Government since 1979. It has been brought about by the deindustrialisation of the economy, by the enormous tax handout of over £20 billion to those earning more than £40,000 a year, and, in my view, also by the horrendous level of arms expenditure, including expenditure on nuclear weapons.
These issues have to be faced, but we are expected, as a country, to face them by cutting the welfare benefits of the poorest in our society. My Bill deals exclusively with the problems of pensioners, but I am sure that other hon. Members will want to bring forward similar Bills in relation to child benefit and other universal benefits.
The Secretary of State for Social Security, in his Mais lecture in the City of London, waxed long and lyrical about the problem of the aging population and the growing burden on those at work of the elderly population. He does not seem to understand that the word "burden" and the way in which he describes the growing problem of the elderly cause fear among many pensioners in this country who are forced to try to live on the state pension, plus housing benefits and any other odd benefits that they may be able to get.
The fact that there is a demographic argument is surely something that we should be pleased about. It shows the success of the welfare state and, in particular, of the national health service in increasing the longevity of so many people.
The Government's policy is a culmination of their 1985 White Paper, introduced by the present chairman of the
836
Conservative party and piloted through the House by the current Prime Minister. The Bill which followed the White Paper reduced the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme and encouraged people to put money into private pension schemes. That has cost the national insurance fund £2 billion. In the Government's view, it has increased flexibility. Above all, however, it has compounded the breaking of the rise in the state old-age pension each year in line with earnings and put in its place a rise that is in line with the retail prices index, which has cost every pensioner at least £19 a week.
Those who believe that the solution to all the so-called problems that we face is to encourage private pension funds ought to look at the investigations carried out by the Select Committee on Social Security and the large-scale fraud that has hit a large number of pension funds. The Maxwell pension fund is the greatest of those frauds, but there are many others. I am concerned about the lack of democracy in running pension funds. I am also concerned about the promotion of private portable pension schemes. There is no democracy whatsoever when it comes to the running of such funds.
What is needed is an understanding that in a civilised society it is the duty of the state to provide a decent standard of living for those who have reached retirement age, which I believe should be reduced to 60. The Government claim that there has been a 34 per cent. rise in the real income levels of those over 65. They have calculated that figure by taking the income of all people over the age of 65, including the super-rich who made huge gains because of the way that the stock market performed, and adding it to occupational pension schemes. Therefore, the Government say that everyone over the age of 65 is better off.
The pensioners I meet at meetings of pensioners' organisations all over this country, as well as in Wales and Scotland, do not share that view. It also masks the fact that women tend not to be members of occupational pension schemes and that older women pensioners are by far the worst off, particularly those over the age of 75 who are living in real poverty.
Hypothermia is a totally preventable and avoidable condition, yet many pensioners die of it each winter. All the codes of practice that have been introduced to protect the elderly from cut-offs have been completely eliminated by the introduction of rechargeable meter keys by the electricity companies. There is now self-disconnection by many elderly people who cannot afford to get the key recharged so that the supply of electricity to their homes can continue.
In addition, cuts in health care and local authority services hit the elderly particularly hard. Two weeks ago there was an enormous rally in Central hall, Westminster, followed by an enormous lobby in this building. More than 5,000 supporters of the National Federation of Retirement Pensions Associations attended Central hall, Westminster, and heard inspirational speeches from Jack Jones and many others. Jack Jones was condemned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being politically motivated—I am not quite sure what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is. At that rally there was a demand for decency in retirement. There was also a call for parity with the European average for the state old-age pension and for an end to the indignities that so many people have to suffer in retirement.

837
It is a condemnation of the television and radio channels and of most newspapers that not one of them saw fit to report anything whatsoever to do with that very important rally and lobby by people who, at great expense, had travelled to London to take part in it.
My proposals would cost a great deal of money. I do not flinch from that. I do not deny it. I am not ashamed to say it. I am also not ashamed to say where I think that money should come from. It should come from restoring the levels of taxation on the very rich which have been done away with by the Government since 1979. It should also come from cutting European Community payments, fraudulently obtained, and from reductions in the enormous level of arms expenditure. My Bill would do a lot to make life a bit more bearable for many people.
Why is that this country and a number of other countries throughout Europe are discussing raising the age at which the state retirement pension should be paid to 67, and in some cases to 70? There is a conspiracy to do that all across Europe. The retired population of Europe and of this country do not want to take part in that conspiracy. We want the retirement age to be harmonised downwards to 60. It is often very unfair that one of a couple living together should have to retire five years earlier than the other. It can be quite a miserable existence for the first waiting for the second—the male partner—to retire at 65. It is only sensible and logical that we should lower the retirement age to 60 and, thereby, bring a great deal of happiness and not a little civilisation to society.
Restoration of the link with earnings, so brutally and crudely broken in 1980, would make every pensioner £19 per week better off. I consider that money to have been stolen from the pensioners.
Finally, I am concerned that, at the moment, the Government are putting forward ideas to target the old-age pension. The word "target" sends a frisson down my spine—a feeling shared by millions of people whose experience of targeting is the indignity of the means test and a reduction in the real standards of living of many
838
poor people. The state pension is a contributory benefit, paid for through taxation and national insurance contributions during a working life, and should be for all time and for ever—and guaranteed so to be—available universally. At the height of the 1970s, when a Labour Government were in office, the state pension was 25 per cent. of average male earnings for a couple. It is now considerably less—just over 15 per cent. That is an indictment of the way in which the Conservative Government have treated the elderly.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Mr. Corbyn: There were many who wanted to bring in the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Bernie Grant.

Pensioners' Equality

  PENSIONERS' EQUALITY
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to harmonise the retirement age at 60 for both women and men; to provide for the state retirement pension to be linked to average earnings and to be universally available; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 July, and to be printed. [Bill 235]
  Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Despite the controversy created by Ministers and other hon. Members, no one has objected to the Bill. That being the case, cannot we now make progress with the Bill for the good reasons advanced by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day

  Finance (No. 2) Bill
  Not amended (in the Committee) and as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  [MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair]

  Finance (No. 2) Bill
    Clause 204

      STAMP DUTY
      3.53 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 158, leave out lines 18 to 41.
      This clause brings forward by three months—from 5 August to 5 May—the date by which the Finance Bill must be enacted. It also extends from 25 days to 30 days the allowable period between the Budget statement and publication of the Finance Bill. It is not contentious to say that the purpose of the first change is to ensure—not in statute but at least in effect, given the changes being made—that the Finance Bill will almost certainly have had to complete its Committee stage before the Easter recess. The purpose of the second change is to ensure that the Government will never have to publish the Finance Bill until after the Christmas recess.
      I should make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of any doubt whatever, that the unified Budget process is a shared objective of the Government and the Opposition. The Armstrong committee recommended the process back in 1980, and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee made similar recommendations in 1982. Both Committees highlighted two principal arguments in favour of the unified budget. The first is that if tax decisions and spending decisions are made together, the relationship between the two is thrown into sharper focus.
      I had the pleasure of hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury speak at a seminar organised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He said that decisions would be better informed. That may or may not be so, but I am absolutely certain that the Financial Secretary and the rest of the Treasury team do not intend to allow us to change any of those decisions under the new unified Budget process. Better informed or not, I suspect that it is the Government's intention that the decisions contained in the Finance Bill remain in the Bill as, indeed, they almost always do from Second Reading right up to Third Reading. However, we shall certainly be better informed.
      The second point made by the Armstrong committee and the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee way back in 1982 was that tax proposals are currently presented and considered in a way that makes revision and even expert consideration difficult. In our evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure we said that the unified Budget process is an important opportunity for reform and that there is a strong case for technical consideration of the Finance Bill, followed by political debate on broader issues of principle. As I understand it, those issues are currently being considered by the Procedure Committee.
      840
      As making the new procedure work is a shared objective, the Opposition are willing to co-operate in the usual way through the usual channels to move cautiously and with consent towards an improved way of dealing with such important issues. It is important that the House should get it right. As I have said many times, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, with all its imperfections, is the only forum for detailed scrutiny of the Government's financial legislation. We have agreed in principle that we want to make the new unified Budget procedure work. Our method of doing that on issues of detail is to wait for the advice from the Procedure Committee as to how best to make progress. We believe that the whole House should have an opportunity to consider and debate the views of the Procedure Committee and then to reach a consensus around its recommendations.
      The Government, however, are not responding reasonably to a wholly reasonable approach. I went to see the Financial Secretary in his very pleasant office, and I should have been warned when I went in because over the fireplace in his office hangs a large portrait of the hon. Member for Huntingdon—nothing so wimpish as the present right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), but a portrait of the famous hon. Member for Huntingdon, Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell did not muck about with a Committee stage of the Finance Bill: when the House refused to take the public spending decisions that he wanted—relating to defence expenditure, I believe—he shouted, "Colonel Harrison, fetch them in", and the dragoons marched in and brought the parliamentary Opposition debate to a close.
      The Financial Secretary has clearly been inspired by that portrait and the strong leadership that it represents. I understand the Conservative party's current desire for strong leadership, and I understand how the Financial Secretary could be seduced into behaving in an authoritarian way, although it is not characteristic.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Is the hon. Gentleman espousing the cause of the Rump Parliament as a representative body capable of analysing the details of a Finance Bill?
      Mr. Brown: I remind the Financial Secretary that the mid-17th century episode ended in tears for many of the principal characters. I think that the appropriate analogy for him is the fate of Sir Thomas Wentworth, who tried to impose his master's wishes on a truculent House and came to a very sticky end, disappointed that in his final hours he did not have even the support of the master whom he sought to serve—an awful warning for others who seek to behave like him. His nickname was Black Tom Tyrant. I should hate to think of the Financial Secretary going down in history as Black Stephen Tyrant—it does not even have a ring to it. However, he is behaving heavy-handedly by insisting that we pre-empt the decisions of the Procedure Committee and legislate now for matters that should more properly be discussed, in the normal way, when we have the views of that Committee in front of us.
      4 pm
      I understand that the Financial Secretary has a vested interest in curtailing debate, but he is pre-empting a decision of the Procedure Committee, obstructing further reforms which may be necessitated by the unified Budget

      841
      process which he says he supports, and generally voting himself a quiet life, uninterrupted by vigorous parliamentary scrutiny.
      In Committee, the Financial Secretary had a good whinge about the difficulties of doing his job. He told us that
      "No wodge of spare time"
      existed for parliamentary scrutiny, and that
      "Time for parliamentary scrutiny is used at the expense not simply of discussions between officials but of the time available for preparing draft clauses, and undertaking public consultations on tax proposals, which could be extremely detailed.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1993; c. 577.]
      That was his defence of his behaviour.
      Mr. Ian Taylor: On certain occasions in Committee it was clear that the hon. Gentleman had not waited for the publication of the Finance Bill before drafting his new clauses in any event. So why the worry, given that the Opposition obviously wish to table certain amendments and new clauses?
      Mr. Brown: There are well over 200 clauses in the Finance Bill, which we are also charged with scrutinising. I am sure that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) will do me the courtesy of admitting that we thoroughly and systematically scrutinised those clauses. Some of them, such as the clause on value added tax, are about controversial issues. Some of them are about matters of detail and are perhaps of specialist interest only. Nevertheless, in a democracy it is right that all those matters receive not just parliamentary scrutiny but informed parliamentary scrutiny. The Opposition, with limited resources, take seriously the duty of ensuring that the Bill gets such scrutiny.
      When discussing the use of parliamentary time in Committee, the Financial Secretary made it clear that he regarded the time spent with civil servants, professional advisers and those who wanted to make representations about the Bill as quality time. He seemed to suggest that the time that he spent with us—the other elected representatives of the people—was at a discount and could not be extended. I almost got the impression that he did not enjoy the time he spent with us, which I am sure could not be right.
      Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to correct that impression. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than spending time with the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and my hon. Friends who joined us in Committee.
      I did not seek to argue in Committee that time spent with officials was high value time, or to draw a distinction between that and time spent with Parliament. I sought to argue that my responsibility to Parliament is to prepare and present proposals that have been properly worked through and assessed and on which, in many cases, outside interests have been consulted. The purpose of so doing is to ensure that Parliament does not spend its time on the minute detail of the technical aspects which, as we agreed in Committee, with one or two exceptions are not the principal interests of hon. Members. Instead, Parliament can consider the wider political and strategic implications of tax proposals which have been properly worked through and presented to the House for it to decide upon.
      Mr. Brown: I am glad that that matter has been cleared up. In that case, however, I do not understand why the
      842
      Financial Secretary wants to curtail the amount of time available to the House to consider the Bill. He wants the right to ensure that the Bill does not have to be published until after Christmas. As I understand it, the present structure would not guarantee that in all circumstances, which is why we have to legislate for the extra five parliamentary days.
      At the same time, the Financial Secretary is putting into place a timetable that is too tight. It is not too tight in itself, but too tight because of the way in which it interfaces with the Easter recess. The pressures that will be on the Committee to finish that stage before the House rises for the Easter recess will be overwhelming. It will mean that we shall be required not, as we could do now, to sit an extra week without clashing with the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, but either to carry our deliberations into the Easter recess—which would not be popular—or to curtail discussion. I am certain that the Government would not be willing to allow the Committee stage to hang over the Easter recess and reconvene after Easter, with Report and Third Reading still to be completed before the new date of 5 May. That closing down of parliamentary time by the interface of the new timetable and the Easter recess is one of the principal concerns of the Opposition.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. I have listened to this comments. For the reasons that I gave in Committee—I shall go through them again later if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I do not accept that the effect of the Government's proposals is to reduce the amount of time available for parliamentary scrutiny.
      Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the effect of his proposed amendment on the amount of time available for parliamentary scrutiny? His amendment suggests that we should, in effect, omit the whole clause. I should make it clear that the effect of omitting the clause would not be to leave the PCTA date that would apply to a Budget delivered in November or December as 5 August, but to revert to the generality of law, which is that under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, unless a Budget is delivered in March or April, the authority runs out after four months. Therefore, the effect of accepting the hon. Gentleman's amendment would be that the PCTA date of a Budget on 25 November would not be 5 May, as the Government propose, but 25 March.
      Mr. Brown: The Financial Secretary has moved from what I thought was the undue exercise of tyranny to crude blackmail. It is not clear from his intervention that the Financial Secretary knows perfectly well that Opposition Members offered a whole series of compromise proposals in Committee. Our view is not that the whole procedure should be completed by April, but the absolute opposite of that. We would have been more than willing to facilitate a legislative change at the time of the Budget or before it if agreement could have been reached that met our legitimate objections about the time given for scrutinising the Finance Bill before the Committee stage and about the amount of time available for consideration of the Bill.
      In case there is any doubt, the compromise that we offered in Committee was the date of 5 June rather than 5 May. That would give us an extra month after the recess a—month that we might not take, but at least we would have the option of taking it if issues arose requiring further

      843
      discussion or further parliamentary scrutiny. It is not a question of parliamentary tactics. We have always tried to agree with the Government on the way in which we work through the Finance Bill. It is not a vehicle for re-fighting, in parliamentary terms, the battle of the Somme. We accept our responsibility thoroughly to scrutinise all the measures in the Bill because there is nobody else to do it. If we did not undertake that responsibility and took it seriously, Parliament would be much criticised. With the clause, the Financial Secretary is saying, in effect, that Opposition Members may discharge that duty, but only in a timetable set by him and not one that is agreeable to us. I do not want to overstate the quarrel.
      Mr. David Winnick: Although I am a member of the Procedure Committee, I have no desire to refer to the Committee's deliberations on this subject, and it would be wrong to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that, since there is general agreement in the House about the unified Budget and there is no disagreement between the two Front Benches about the desirability of change, it is unfortunate that this reform should bring with it some controversy because the Government are refusing to compromise? Since there is no disagreement about the unified Budget, why have a sticking point between the two sides? The Opposition consider this to be important and it is unfortunate that the Government are adopting this attitude.
      Mr. Brown: I agree wholeheartedly with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We are not just in favour of the unified Budget process—we are enthusiastically in favour of it. Our concerns and resentments stem from the fact that the amount of time that will be available for the Opposition and for dissident Members on the Government side to consider these issues will be curtailed. It may be felt that dissident Conservative Members are at a discount in as much as they rarely—not never—vote against the Government. However, within the relative safety of the Committee, they often seek to explore in considerable detail with Ministers matters of specialist interest to themselves or their close friends. Although the detail with which they explore those matters rarely results in a rebel yell, let alone a rebel vote, time is taken to explore matters vigorously with the Treasury Front Bench. That is a right and, I would argue, a duty—so long as it is performed altruistically—which pertains not just to the Opposition but to Government Back Benchers as well. Therefore, I am seeking to protect their interests rather than just those of the Opposition with this amendment.
      My view on this matter would be the same if the Labour party were in office and the Conservative party in opposition. It is a test of altruism that those proposing the change can say that this is the way we would like it regardless of whether we are in government. That is the test that we apply to this. As the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) made clear, I am saddened that something that should be dealt with by consensus between the two sides has been a matter of deep controversy. It is not an issue that we will let go.
      Our preferred way of proceeding is to wait until the Procedure Committee has put its recommendations before the House, for the House to have a debate and then,
      844
      through the usual channels, to agree on an acceptable timetable. That timetable may be on the basis of just one year, since this is the first time we shall have the unified Budget procedure. We would then wish to proceed by consensus. We are debating not the contents of the Government's legislation, but the way in which the House should deal with it.
      It is not necessary to legislate in the way we are being asked to do and it is certainly not necessary to do it now. It is a gross discourtesy to the Procedure Committee. The Financial Secretary's spurious argument that if we do not agree with his construction there will be nothing available to the House except to resort to the general law of the land can be dealt with easily: we would facilitate any legislation introduced by the Government which reflected the compromise that we wish to reach with them on these matters.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Ian Taylor: One of the disadvantages that you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that, when the debate moves from the close confines of the Committee to the wide open expanses of the green Benches of the House, you have not participated in the excitement of the debate in which Committee members were privileged to take part. If you had been there, you might have noticed the concern of the excellent hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). The hon. Gentleman was concerned that more all-night sittings might be needed if his greatest fears were realised and the Committee was truncated.
      The hon. Gentleman seemed principally to be worried about spending more nights with his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who regaled the Committee more than once at great length—and with occasional wisdom—about his exploits. The hon. Member for Hartlepool included the holiday he was about to take in Majorca in those remarks. Unfortunately, he got lost at that point and forgot to give Committee members the full details. I hope that he will remedy that this afternoon. Most members of the Committee felt that the details of the hon. Member's holiday in Majorca were more interesting than the rest of the speech that he made on that occasion.
      Mr. David Willetts: My recollection is that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East was more concerned that he would have to spend the night with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) rather than the hon. Member for Hartlepool.
      Mr. Taylor: It is true that the Committee members were enthralled and privileged to have large extracts of a book that had been recently published by the hon. Member for Peckham read into the record. I said at the time that that was inevitably a ploy by Labour members of the Committee to ensure that the book would have a wider circulation through Hansard than it would have in its original book form, because the minutes of the Finance Bill Committee are read avidly by a large number of people. I hope that the modest expectations of Labour members of the Committee for that publication were realised.
      The debate on whether Parliament will be short-changed in parliamentary scrutiny has arisen out of the principle of the unified Budget. I give full credit to the hon.

      845
      Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. He clearly stated that he and his Labour Front-Bench colleagues welcome the unified Budget. The House should ponder on that.
      In essence, the changes that are created by bringing together the expenditure Budget, or the autumn statement, and the fund-raising Budget—which has normally been in March, except under Labour Governments, when there were several a year—make a significant impact on other procedural matters. The Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 applies in this context.
      The amendments are about whether, in terms of that Act, one tries to change the Finance Bill in a way that alters the ability of Parliament to inspect and examine it, and whether the different recesses that will fall when the Bill is introduced impede Parliament's ability to look at the Finance Bill. The Minister clearly stated that the technical day count and the practical reality did not justify the Opposition's worries.
      The benefit of a unified Budget is something that many hon. Members have been urging for some time. I join those on the Labour Front Bench in welcoming that. One of the problems that a member of a Finance Bill Committee faces is that he knows that the Red Book that has been previously issued in association with the autumn statement is almost out of date and certainly needs revising. It is therefore difficult to get a complete grip of the Government's expenditure plans in detail, against the taxes that we are examining in that Committee.
      The Committee's discussions depend on whether the taxes are to cover last year's estimates of the Government's financial expenditure or whether they relate to the future. This unification is important. We do not usually mention the fact that there are Cabinet Committees, but it is widely known that one such committee is looking even now at the Government's expenditure plans. In a fit of openness, which I welcome, the Government have let it be known that there is a control total for expenditure of £253·5 billion—the Financial Secretary will correct me if the number after the decimal point is wrong. Nevertheless, that is the target for Government expenditure in the forthcoming year.
      We do not yet know how it will be divided up. That will be revealed in the autumn statement, when, for the first time, we will simultaneously be given the Government's plans for raising taxation—before the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East jumps to his feet, I should add that I use the word "raising" in its most neutral sense; I am not recommending a policy decision—which are always part of the traditional Budget procedure, and their plans for expenditure. That will make for a much more enlightened, and hence a more effective, debate.
      I wonder whether Labour Members have taken this into account when giving their rather grudging acceptance of the timetable. When we have the unified Budget—probably in November—much more information will be before the House, so the debate on it will be better.
      This will benefit hon. Members on both sides of the House. When we are dealing with Government expenditure of about £253·5 billion and a Government-projected deficit of £50 billion, it is vital to understand what the Government are attempting to cover with basic taxation, what growth patterns they project in the Red Book, and what will be the likely breakdown of expenditure between structural spending and automatic
      846
      stabilisers related to the recession. It will help the House when it comes to look at the expenditure side of the fiscal equation to know what the taxation side will look like.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The hon. Gentleman has obviously given the matter a great deal of thought. What does he understand will happen to the two Industry Act forecasts?
      Mr. Taylor: The excitement is in the waiting. There will be a great many forecasts for the hon. Gentleman to get his teeth into. We are all on tenterhooks to find out whether he enjoys the accuracy of the forecasts or whether he wants to be the eighth wise man. I am sure that he will draw his own conclusions in his own time.
      The unified Budget will give the House a much broader basis for assessing the way forward, and a much better backdrop to the eventual consideration of the Finance Bill in Committee.
      Then there is the problem of the Christmas recess. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) almost over-excited himself with the prospect of getting the Finance Bill before Christmas. Doubtless he reads so quickly that he will already have finished all the novels that he had put aside for the Christmas period, and will eagerly start reading the Finance Bill for his post-turkey Christmas afternoon enjoyment. We all have our foibles; obviously, that is his.
      But it is not the critical point to bear in mind when asking whether we properly scrutinise the Finance Bill—it does not matter much whether it is published before Christmas or immediately afterwards. Conservative Back Benchers are well aware that it takes a certain amount of time to go through all the small print of certain Government measures—for instance, to read all the Inland Revenue press releases that go out with the Budget forecasts. They are voluminous enough in themselves.
      I suffer occasionally from paper indigestion, and it takes me longer to go through all the press releases and guidance notes that the Inland Revenue put out than perhaps it does the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I understand perfectly what the hon. Gentleman is saying in his capacity as a loyal Back-Bench supporter of the Government, but has it occurred to him that, when he is in opposition, he might welcome slightly more time to scrutinise the Government's proposed legislation?
      Mr. Taylor: That is a double hypothetical question: first, whether it is possible for me to be in opposition; secondly, if I were in opposition, whether the then Government would have any legislation. There are double hypotheses there, and I would rather not be tempted down that avenue.
      The Christmas recess is a factor, and I look forward to the Financial Secretary's comments on it when he makes his speech, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The simple reality is that the most effective job that a Back Bencher can perform in terms of the Finance Bill is to look at the issues.
      The exact drafting of the amendments is less important. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who speaks on such matters, has often said that the amendments that he has tabled are probing amendments, in which case one does not need the detailed text. One

      847
      needs to know the various subjects that are likely to be covered, and they are clearly covered in the general debates on Second Reading and the debates on the Floor of the House before the Bill goes to Committee.
      At those stages, various points of principle must be made. If probing amendments are tabled, it gives the House a good opportunity for debate, without necessarily assuming that the Government will accept the amendment. That is happening on the Government Benches. Quite often, if we are concerned about an aspect of Government policy on which we seek clarification and there is no question but that our amendment may be faulty in its preparational drafting, we look to the Government to satisfy us that they are considering the amendment carefully, or will table their own on Report.
      I am glad to say that I have sometimes been successful in persuading the Government to do just that. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has often supported me, particularly on employee share ownership. The system works, and I give him credit for that.
      I am less sure of my ground about the work of the officials. If I can sit up all night with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), officials can stay up all night drafting the Finance Bill. I am not too sure that I wish to give them much comfort. They will have to work even harder under the unified scheme than perhaps they have done before. So be it.
      Performance-related pay would be even better, and I know that the Financial Secretary is keen on that. Perhaps brownie points will be awarded in the margin of annotated versions of the Finance Bill in subsequent years.
      Mr. Matthew Carrington: We need to be sure that we look after officials, make their work easier and ensure that they work reasonable hours and are not over-straining themselves. If their work is being concertinaed into a shorter period, as will happen as a result of the change in timing, it also means that their work in other periods of the year will be that much less, so there may well be a problem of spreading their burden evenly over the year. Taken overall, their work should be no more and no less.
      Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I must disclose an interest in this matter. I am the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is also the Minister with responsibility for public service and science, and who is an excellent contributor to the thinking on how our civil service should develop. If he were in the Chamber, I would pay him a tribute—[Interruption.] Oh: as he is in the Chamber, I am able to pay him the compliments that he deserves, and that he would expect me, as his PPS, to give him.
      The important point about the civil service, and particularly the Inland Revenue, is that those on the Committee respect and value enormously the work they do. This year, there will undoubtedly be a much greater work load to try to get the unified Budget before the House by the due date, which will be some time in November.
      The only difficulty that I can foresee is that, given that all Back Benchers had to make sure that their Budget representations were in to Ministers by the Chevening weekend—if memory serves me right, that was the first
      848
      weekend in January; I have not calculated it backwards, so if an hon. Member in a sedentary position can do it better than I can on my feet, perhaps he would tell me when the equivalent time might be two and a bit months before the November Budget—the new date may well bite heavily into the holidays of officials.
      Will the Financial Secretary tell us what the equivalent of the Chevening weekend might be so that Back Benchers can get their acts together and start to gear up to lobby some time in September?
      Mr. Carrington: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. On the timing that he has just given the House, the Chevening weekend will coincide with the party conference. Does that not represent a great opportunity for consulting the whole party on Budget measures at the conference?
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Taylor: The Conservative party, with its democratic conference, could do that. The problem for the Labour party would be that, until it gets its voting structure sorted out, it would find it embarrassing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East would not like me to stray into his private grief about the voting system in the Labour party. I have a suspicion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are not so keen yourself that I stray into the topic of democracy in the Labour party.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am keen that we debate the amendment.
      Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the core of the subject, which is amendment No. 27.
      This debate is as serious as the amendment that has been tabled—the amendment having been tabled, the debate follows in character. The Financial Secretary was helpful to the Committee by pointing out some of the timing details. It is interesting, for example, that 5 August is the date in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. It is true that, decades ago, the House sat into August, rising just before the Glorious Twelfth. Now, it is normal for the House to rise by the end of July.
      Therefore, it is inconceivable that Parliament would be able to scrutinise the Finance Bill until as late as 5 August. There is bound to be some truncation. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take us back through the argument that he gave us in Committee, looking at the effective dates of the Budget as it was in March and the likely number of days that elapsed under the old arrangements in comparison with the new arrangements.
      If the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 is amended as the Government have said it will be to incorporate the new date of 5 May, that gives ample time for proper parliamentary scrutiny without the absolute necessity of all-night sittings. Yet all-night sittings are one of the excitements of the Finance Bill Committee. Serving on that Committe is an honour for hon. Members on both sides of the House. On most other Committees, hon. Members are told to keep quiet, but on that Committee we have ample opportunity to air our views.
      The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) regaled the Committee with his detailed legal and economic knowledge, to the great pleasure of most of us. Those of us who found it difficult to follow him were in a minority, but he was constructive on many of the issues before us.

      849
      In those circumstances, it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman at 4 in the morning rather than 6 in the evening. It was much more entertaining at that stage, because the debate was mature. Those are the excitements of being on the Finance Bill Committee when it sits all night. All-night sittings enable us to dilate much more on some of the issues than we would be able to do on the truncated time scale of a Committee that felt bound to rise by 10 o'clock in the evening.
      I hope that I have enlightened the House about some of the issues at stake. I know that Labour Front-Bench Members feel aggrieved. The skill that they normally show in Committee and the forensic ability of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East are almost undervalued by the amendment. The hon. Gentleman need not be embarrassed.
      I have been a member of the Finance Bill Committee since 1987, when I first had the honour to enter this place. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has also been a member of that Committee since 1987. We have become fixtures: the Finance Bill would not be the Finance Bill without us. If I continue to speak as I am doing, I am sure that I will be a member of the Finance Bill Committee for many years to come. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East will be on the Opposition Benches for very many years to come.
      The hon. Member and I will be members of the Committee when it sits early in the next new year. However, he underestimates his skills. There is no doubt that there was quality in our debates in Committee this year. There was an eagerness to examine in detail and for rapid dispatch. The Committee rose after not too many late sittings, but a sufficient number to give us the feeling that we had properly scrutinised what the Government were doing.
      There was some controversy, but the Committee showed that we do not need length of time to have a quality debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East has almost undermined our confidence in his skills by moving the amendment. Therefore, I do not feel that I can urge my colleagues to accept it.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) has made an entertaining contribution which reflected on those who were members of the Committee. His comments suggested that the Committee was a rather cosy club. I feel slightly diffident about intruding into these private exchanges, which have obviously been repeated on more than one occasion.
      However, I believe that there is a serious point behind the amendment. Looking at it from the point of view, as I do, of entering the debate for the first time and not the 10th time, it seems to me slightly strange that the Government should introduce a reform which was welcomed by Members in all parts of the House and which seemed to be a constructive way forward and a better way to present the facts of the debate and then follow that immediately with a procedural mechanism for curtailing the very debate that they appear to want to stimulate. That is certainly what it looks like from where I am standing.
      The hon. Member for Esher gave a somewhat esoteric, introspective view of how the Committee conducts itself. He rather underplayed the importance of the debate for people outside the House who are seriously affected by the consequences of the Finance Act. Whether or not the Finance Bill Committee carries out its deliberations in a
      850
      series of extended sittings is, to some extent for those outside this place, a matter of little concern, although one hears the passing comment that it is a strange way to run business efficiently.
      People outside this place are concerned not about the number of hours that the Committee sits, but about the time available to marshal the arguments, to analyse the implications and to present a case if—and this is after all the purpose of having a legislative Committee—we are genuinely to consider the implications and be prepared to review and vary them: in other words, if the debate is genuine.
      I have taken the trouble to read the interesting and constructive report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the Government's proposals. It seems to me that we are being asked to support a move that is primarily for the convenience of the Treasury rather than for those who are affected by the changes.
      I have not been a member of the Finance Bill Committee, but I have been exercised by some of the proposals in this year's Finance Bill. No matter what side of the argument one is on, the VAT proposals have been extremely controversial. As time has passed, the implications of those proposals have been more widely discussed.
      I am concerned about the changes in oil taxation. Even within the present timetable, it is instructive to note that yesterday, according to my local daily newspaper, The Press and Journal in Aberdeen, Shell announced that it would be laying off workers as a direct result of the tax changes in this Bill.
      That has happened in respect of the present time scale. It will not be of much value if such proposals come after the completion of the process. The shorter the process, the more likely it is that people will not have collected their arguments together in time, I am concerned that these things are likely to be rushed through.
      In many cases, the matters we are talking about are extremely technical and their implications are not always easy to understand, even by the companies or individuals that are affected by them, or by the Treasury officials implementing them.
      One of the reasons why Finance Bills are so long is that a significant number of their clauses correct the errors and unexpected side effects contained in previous Finance Acts. While it is inevitable that that will happen, it should be an ambition of Treasury Ministers and officials to limit the number of clauses that fall into that category. The shorter the time in which deliberations must be concluded, the more likely it is that we will get things wrong and, as was said in Committee, the longer each Finance Bill is likely to become year by year.
      The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said that he might end up needing a trailer on the back of his car to take his reading home for Christmas. He is the only Member to think that he will receive the relevant documents before Christmas.
      Apart from the question of tidiness and convenience to the Treasury, what is the purpose of bringing the income and expenditure proposals together? It seems to me that it is to ensure that there is a better informed debate about the relationship between the two. In at least the first year or two of the change, it would be better to have a longer rather than shorter period of debate to see how it is conducted. If it becomes apparent, after a year or two, that the timetable can be met, it might be appropriate to adopt

      851
      it permanently. But to adopt a new procedure and then insist that the period of debate is shortened, before we have seen how it operates in practice, is wrong and undermines the change.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman has said several times that the Government are seeking to shorten the time available for debate by this clause. I sought to explain that that is not the effect of the clause. Its intention, broadly speaking, is to replicate the present arrangements. As far as it changes the length of time available for debate, it errs on the side of lengthening, not shortening, the time available.
      Mr. Bruce: I understand that point, but I believe that the Minister has acknowledged that the practicalities behind the way in which the parliamentary year falls mean that there will be less time available for debate. The Financial Secretary may disagree. When a radical and welcome change is being introduced for the purposes of informing the debate, there is a case for extending rather than containing the time for debate, at least for the first year or two.
      The hon. Member for Esher has said that the fact that we are bringing the two parts of the Budget debate together should make it clearer and speedier. That is one point of view. It is equally likely that we will set more hares running which will have to be considered. We should allow time for that.
      The current debate is of some interest and should be taking place in the Conservative party, as well as in the Opposition parties, because it is directly affected by the political consequences. Ministers may want to say to the House, "These are the facts. This is the state of the deficit and it must be addressed." In that case we need honesty and openness so that all hon. Members and people outside can face up to the fact that we must cut expenditure and raise more revenue. In those circumstances, we need a climate of genuine and honest debate. I welcome that.
      The current debate is whether there should be more hypothecation of taxes. I do not think anybody in the House would or could suggest that all taxes should be hypothecated—that would be wholly unrestrictive and overly populist. The Government must recognise that Governments who say that they will cut taxes and then increase them, and say that the reason for doing so is that they misread the calculations and that the situation is a lot worse than they thought, are pursuing the debate abstrusely.
      The objective of the reforms that have been introduced is to make the debate more open, to make it clear to all sides why there is a deficit and what the shortfall is and to enable people to explore at the same time where we can cut expenditure and raise revenue. That is a welcome and constructive change, but it does stimulate more debate and not less.
      Mr. Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman reveal how his party would propose to cut expenditure and raise revenue? I am sure that the electors of Christchurch would be interested in his ideas on that subject.
      Mr. Bruce: I would be happy to do that, but Mr. Deputy Speaker would tell me that the purpose of the timetable motion is not to make a campaign speech for the
      852
      electors of Christchurch. I have been there, however, and I know that the electors I have met are more enthusiastic about our policies than about those of the Conservative party.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now doing something that he said he should not do.
      Mr. Bruce: I accept your constraint entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      4.45 pm
      If the Financial Secretary is unable to accept the amendment, and if he insists that it is not the Government's intention to shorten the period of debate but to replicate it, that is the minimum that should happen. At the risk of repeating myself, with a new reform such as this, it would be better to extend the debate. All the evidence that I have seen before the Treasury Select Committee shows that there is no problem about extending the debate. The only people concerned about the time scale appear to be the Treasury. The argument that the reform would create a greater period of uncertainty is one that people have lived with for a hundred years.
      The argument that the tax year needs to be tidy and that all the relevant matters need to be sewn up in advance has not been a serious factor in previous practical considerations. It is a matter of absolute astonishment to me that the tax year starts on 5 April. To most people that is peculiar and it should be addressed. It has been suggested that we should at some time make the tax year begin at the start of the calendar year, as in most other countries.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: That would ruin Christmas.
      Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman may say that that would ruin his Christmas, but the longer the time for debate, the more chance he has to leave it to one side and come to it in the new year just as happily.
      The Government have introduced a welcome reform, but they should recognise that the provision of a little more time in the first two years would not go amiss.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: As I did at the beginning of the Committee stage, I will start by declaring an interest. I am an adviser to National Westminster Securities, which is the investment banking arm of the NatWest group. I am a director of Dewe Rogerson consultants and I am also the parliamentary consultant to the Institute of Taxation. None of those bodies knew that I would speak in the debate this afternoon, nor had any idea of what I would say.
      As has already been said, we had a very full discussion of this matter in Committee. The House should be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to discuss the matter again on Report. Some very serious issues are raised by the Opposition amendment.
      I am very glad that in the fascinating interchange at the beginning of the debate between my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) quite a lot was said about the great constitutional debates of the 17th century. Those debates are pertinent to the matter that we are discussing.
      The House will know that, between the 1620s and the 1640s, the great constitutional debates turned on the extent to which taxation should be by the consent of the

      853
      Government—or at least by the consent of the taxpayer, if not the Government. Of course, in those days, Parliament considered itself to be the representative of the taxpaying public rather than the whole public. If Pym and Hampden were in our midst this afternoon, they might have added to that principle the need to ensure that taxation legislation, like all other forms of legislation, was comprehensible to those to whom it would apply. In the 17th century, proposed taxation legislation would always have been comprehensible. There might have been a proposal for ship money or exercise duty, but everyone understood what that was about. The provisions bringing those taxes into effect could have been interpreted by any court in accordance with their apparent meaning as debated in this Chamber.
      We have moved onwards since the 17th century, but I cannot say that we have moved forwards. It is now a great challenge for this House, the general public and even those in the legal and accounting professions who spend all their time on tax matters to understand the meaning of a Finance Bill. On Second Reading and throughout our discussions in Committee, I protested about the fact that Finance Bills have become steadily longer and more convoluted, and. I make no apology for protesting now because it is a serious issue. Unless Members of Parliament call parliamentary draftsmen to account and react on behalf of the public to the increasing complexity and opacity of taxation legislation, no discipline will be placed on parliamentary draftsmen and no restraint will be placed on the length and complexity of Finance Bills.
      The result of that will be extremely undesirable. It will mean a loss to justice because people will not understand the law. They will not claim the allowances properly due to them and will be penalised for making inadequate declarations because they did not understand the law. There will also be considerable economic costs because we will have to pay talented people to spend hours and hours interpreting the legislation. That expense will have to be borne by industry, businesses, individuals and the economy.
      How does that relate to the time to be made available for parliamentary scrutiny of Finance Bills? Clearly, if taxes are to be collected for the following year, the more time that we and the outside world have to consider a Finance Bill when it is first drafted and published and before it becomes law, the greater the possibility of our doing our job in this place and scrutinising legislation carefully. That will allow the Government to expound the legislation and justify the measures and a general consensus will develop outside the House that the new taxation proposals are sound and reasonable. That is important for the integrity and reputation of this place, the law and our tax system.
      I accept my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary's argument that the Government's proposal on timing will, if anything, increase the parliamentary time available for scrutiny of Finance Bills. With the great mental agility for which he is famous, he succeeded in convincing us in Committee that another five days of parliamentary time would be made available. Although I could not follow his calculations as they seemed extremely complicated, I accept his conclusion.
      However, I greatly regret that we did not take this opportunity to provide for a significant qualitative increase in the time available in this place to discuss Finance Bills in future. I say "in this place" because there
      854
      are two sides to the public consent that is being given to Finance Bills: first, there is the reaction of the public, the experts who analyse Finance Bills and those who want to make representations to the Government and Parliament before irrevocable decisions are taken; and, secondly, there is the debate in this place.
      We are all grateful for the detailed representations that we receive from all sorts of outside bodies on the Government's fiscal proposals in the Budget speech and subsequently in the Finance Bill. I accept that many of those representations are interested but that is perfectly right. We want to hear how individual categories of people or businesses feel that they will be impacted by those measures so that we can take account of their representations. We can discount them to the extent necessary because they are clearly self-interested and we can try to reconcile them with the Government's need for additional revenue or their need to conserve revenue at any time. That is what discussion of the Finance Bill is about.
      However, we must give people the time to read the Finance Bill and to lobby their Members of Parliament, and we must leave ourselves enough time to consider those representations and do our homework. It is important that Back Benchers do their homework—the Government do theirs well—but, if we are to play our role, we must have time to do that. Debates must not be foreshortened by the Government's threat that, if we do not make progress, they will be unable to raise revenue. All sorts of obvious disastrous consequences would flow from that. We do not want to become the victims of such moral blackmail if we can avoid it.
      In Committee I backed an amendment that sought to set the date by which the Finance Bill should enter law. It suggested 5 July rather than 5 August, which would have given two more months for consideration of the Bill. The Financial Secretary explained—he always makes a convincing argument—that that would cause all sorts of administrative difficulties for the Government. He said that the bureaucracy—the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Treasury—must spend a lot of time preparing for Finance Bills. However, I greatly regret that the conflict between bureaucratic convenience and open government and parliamentary scrutiny has been resolved in favour of bureaucratic convenience. If hon. Members do not argue against that, nobody ever will and we shall be less able to make a meaningful contribution to the evolution of our tax law. That would be bad for parliamentary sovereignty, the legitimacy of the tax system and the tax system itself.
      However complicated and technical the proposed measures are, and however high-minded and conscientious officials may be, unless they are exposed to scrutiny there will inevitably be no counterweight or countervailing discipline to proposals that officialdom decides to put forward, and we shall have worse and worse taxation law.
      May I take up a remark made by the Financial Secretary in an intervention in the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown)? The Financial Secretary said that Parliament wanted to be involved in the broad strategic thrust of tax law rather than with its technical details. I wish to challenge that view, which I hope does not reflect the considered opinion of the Financial Secretary.

      855
      5 pm
      Of course, hon. Members are concerned with the strategic thrust of tax law and with the broad economic consequences of the Government's fiscal policy, and whether that policy is expansionary or restrictive. They are concerned about whether we should reduce our present deficit by reducing expenditure or increasing revenues. They consider where increases or reductions in revenues in the tax system and in general public spending should fall. That is the stuff of our debates in the House on Treasury matters, and there are a number of opportunities to discuss such matters in the course of the year. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is laughing—no doubt I take advantage of those opportunities, but he never fails to do so either. I always appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interventions, which are invariably well thought through and interesting—[Interruption.] I did not hear the intervention of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), but if he wants to intervene I shall be delighted to give way to him. I find it difficult to hear what he says when he comments from a sedentary position.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I have a soft spot for the hon. Gentleman, so I shall rescue him. He is chattering on as if he is taking part in a television quiz show where the aim is to keep talking about the Finance Bill without ever stopping. Why does he not confirm that many of his colleagues are at a royal garden party and he has been instructed to keep talking so that we do not have to vote before 6 pm?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is being more than a little unfair. He suggests that what I am saying cannot stand on its merits. That is wrong. I contributed to the debates in Committee when, as far as I know, there were no competing social attractions in the west end of London and I said very much the same. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of speaking with a lack of sincerity or lack of consistency today. If I had a less good memory, his intervention might have saved my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary from some remarks that I was about to make in response to his observations this afternoon. It seems a little perverse of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East to intervene and deflect my comments of a mildly and respectfully sceptical nature about a Minister, and a very distinguished one at that.
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: From what the hon. Member is saying, I take it that it is not true that he continues to speak because his hon. Friends are all at the palace. Perhaps he is doing so because he does not want to discuss VAT.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware of any activities outside the House, but I would welcome it if the debate were to relate to the amendment.
      Mr. Davies: I can say with the greatest sincerity that I do not know the movements of my colleagues nor those of Opposition Members, either this afternoon or during any other afternoon. One is not the keeper of one's colleagues in this place, thank heaven, unless one happens to be a Whip, and I have never had that particular honour. I have no idea who may be doing what this afternoon. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will not want me to go into the issue of VAT on domestic fuel, which has already had a generous airing, but I should like to state that I have never avoided an opportunity to stand up in public and
      856
      defend the Government's decision on VAT, which I believe to be fundamentally correct, though it may be costly in the short term. Correct and courageous Government decisions often are politically costly in a party political sense in the short term.
      The Government are to be more, not less, commended for taking that move—[Interruption.] It is interesting that this is, I think, the first time since I was elected to the House that Labour Members have sought to deflect me from making comments that are not of a purely adulatory nature about the remarks of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
      Mr. Carrington rose—
      Mr. Davies: Perhaps more understandably, one of my hon. Friends is now rising to deflect me from that purpose.
      Mr. Carrington: I hesitate to deflect my hon. Friend from his purpose—it is beyond the reason of anyone to try to do so. My hon. Friend is a notable scourge of parliamentary draftsmen. He started his speech on that subject and raised considerable concerns among many Conservative Members on Second Reading and in Committee on the gobbledegook in the Bill. If the time scale for debating the Finance Bill was expanded next year, we would also need to be able to change the procedures for considering the Bill so that we could change the drafting. A notable factor of our discussions on the Finance Bill has been our inability to change the drafting, despite all the cogent arguments advanced by my hon. Friend on how badly drafted some provisions of the Bill are.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. I well understand the reluctance of Ministers to agree, on the spot in Committee, to changes in the Bill's drafting. It would lead to much better and more considered tax legislation if, first, there was more time between the publication of the Bill and the commencement of the Committee stage. That would allow more time for the Government to prepare for the Bill's Committee stage by discussing with their officials, the Revenue, and Customs and Excise any suggestions made about the Bill by outside interested parties.
      Secondly, although it is a matter of the procedures of the House, it would be better if there were a slightly longer period between the end of the Committee stage and the beginning of Report stage to give the Government more time to consider new drafts and explore the various legal implications of any sensible changes in the Bill's wording. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) agrees that my suggestion is along the lines of his extremely positive and constructive intervention.
      It should be common ground between all of us who are concerned—
      Mr. Alistair Darling: Sit down.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman does not like what I am saying. I do not think that he cares about the quality of tax legislation or parliamentary sovereignty, although he mouths all the right rhetoric about democracy and accountability. It is a great pity that I do not receive support on such issues on which there should be consensus among all parliamentarians, irrespective of specific views on the substance or content of the policies.
      Mr. Clive Betts: There are two advantages in changing the timetable for discussion of the

      857
      Finance Bill. First, it might mean that future debates on it would not clash with Conservative Members' visits to Buckingham palace, which interfere with proper discussion of the Bill. Secondly, future discussions would take place in the middle of winter and Conservative Members might be more concerned about Government policies to impose VAT on the fuel bills of elderly people who will suffer as a result.
      Mr. Davies: I gladly concede that the hon. Gentleman is ingenious in finding ways of raising the issue of VAT. He knows my views on that; I do not attempt to avoid the subject—I have not done so in the past, and will not do so in future. I do not resent the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject once again. It seems to be, not only natural and right, but a considerable privilege for Members of Parliament occasionally to be offered invitations by Her Majesty.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What does that have to do with the amendment? I must insist that the debate continues purely and simply along the lines of the amendment.
      Mr. Davies: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will concede that it had nothing at all to do with the amendment but everything to do with the intervention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). You know that it is not my habit to run away from points made by hon. Members
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It must be the habit of the hon. Gentleman to take note of instructions from the Chair—two wrongs do not make a right.
      Mr. Davies: I take the view of the Chair.
      I shall return to the point that I was making at the beginning of that series of interventions. Although it is important for the House to be concerned about the broad strategy of fiscal policy—which is of enormous significance to the economy and the country—it is also extremely important for Parliament to be able effectively to scrutinise the details of any legislation, including those of the Finance Bill.
      Those of us who were in the private sector before we came to this place know that the devil is often in the detail. One thing that we do in the private sector when we are signing or proposing to sign a contract is read the detail. Surely that principle must apply as much to the Finance Bill as to any aspect of law making.
      The Labour party has made it easy for me this afternoon because it has tabled an amendment that, by general agreement, is technically deficient or would produce a complete perversity if passed because we would end up with less time for parliamentary scrutiny, not more. Therefore, I have no dilemma at all, morally or otherwise, and I can say with great enthusiasm that I shall vote against the amendment. Nevertheless, I am glad that we have had a further opportunity to discuss the broad issues of principle that have been raised in this debate.
      Mr. Dorrell: We have had a wide-ranging debate on this subject this afternoon. The question before the House is relatively narrow—it concerns the consequences for parliamentary procedure of the move to a unified Budget, which was announced by the former Chancellor in the 1992 Budget.
      858
      The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and other hon. Members expressed support for the principle of a unified Budget. The hon. Gentleman even let slip the phrase that he was "enthusiastically in favour or' at least this aspect of the Government's approach to budgetary matters. I am grateful for that support and I share the enthusiasm that has been expressed on both sides of the House.
      As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the principal purpose of moving to a unified Budget is to ensure that debate of the budgetary proposals—whether revenue or expenditure oriented—tabled by the Government is better informed and takes place against the background of a recognition of the fiscal realities that any Government face.
      It is important to be clear that we are talking about the introduction of a unified Budget. None the less, it is a Budget that will be presented to the House as the Government's proposals and for which the Government will then seek the support of the House with regard to taxation and expenditure. We are not adopting the ideas that have been discussed for many years for a green Budget. When the Finance Bill is published, it will not be in the form of a consultative document—it will be the Government's proposals, for which we shall seek the support of the House and Parliament as a whole.
      Nor are we moving in the direction of splitting the traditional Finance Bill between technical measures and tax rate questions—a distinction that some people who are interested in the subject have sought to draw. That distinction is easier to describe in general theory than to recognise in precise practice. It would also lead to two Finance Bills passing through what is already a crowded legislative programme, which is not a proposal that the Government find attractive.
      We are talking about a specific Government proposal that the revenue and expenditure aspects of the budgetary process should be brought together into a single process of government during the late summer and autumn of the year and a single process in Parliament that is based on the presentation of the unified Budget in late November or early December.
      Against that background, I refer to the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East for consideration today. He said that he did not understand why the Government felt it necessary to include in the Finance Bill specific proposals for changing the operation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968. He asked why we had to move so quickly: why could we not simply leave things as they are and see how they work in the new world? As I explained in an intervention in his speech, simply leaving things as they are is not an option because if the existing Provisional Collection of Taxes Act were allowed to operate without amendment it would have the effect of curtailing significantly the time available for parliamentary debate.
      5.15 pm
      It is therefore incumbent on the Government to propose changes to the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act to preserve the scope for proper parliamentary debate. The policy steer that has led to that provision being included in the Bill is that we are seeking to replicate in the new world the provisions for parliamentary scrutiny that have existed until now. Essentially, we are replicating the status quo. As I said in an intervention on the hon.

      859
      Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), we are replicating the status quo but, in so far as we are changing it at all, we are changing it in the direction of extra parliamentary time.
      I shall go through the proposed changes to demonstrate to the Committee that the effect of the changes is not, as is suspected in some parts of the House, to curtail debate but simply to replicate the existing arrangements and marginally to increase the time available for debate.
      First, I shall examine this subject from the point of view of the change in the total time between Budget day and the day on which the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act authority expires. Under the old system, over the past six years we have seen Budget days vary between the latest date of 20 March and the earliest date of 10 March. Let us say that, on average, Budget day in the old world was fixed at 15 March. Although we originally said that the new Budget day would be some time near the end of November or the beginning of December, we have since refined that to place the emphasis on the new Budget day being at the end of November. Therefore, I take it as a working hypothesis that the new Budget day will be 25 November.
      The difference between 15 March and 25 November is roughly three months and 20 days. We have brought forward the anticipated Budget day by roughly three months and 20 days. Our proposal is to bring forward the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act day from 5 August to 5 May. That brings it forward by exactly three months. Therefore, we are bringing forward Budget day by 20 days more than we are bringing forward the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act day, the consequence being that the gap between the two dates is 20 days longer than it is under the present arrangements. That does not lead to a curtailing of parliamentary debate.
      The second stage of the argument is that hon. Members say that the calculation takes no account of the effect of recesses on the time available for parliamentary scrutiny. Let us examine the effect of recesses on the lengthened time that will be available between Budget day and the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act day. Under the existing system, between 15 March and 5 August we must accommodate the Easter recess, which normally runs for between one and one and a half weeks—let us say one and a half weeks—and the Whitsun recess, which is always precisely one week. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) referred to time in August which is, in reality, no longer available for parliamentary scrutiny because most hon. Members would receive extremely badly the suggestion that Parliament should sit into August.
      The effect of the existing arrangements is to take out of the time available for parliamentary scrutiny one and a half weeks at Easter, one week at Whit and a further week at the end of the process—a total of three and a half weeks. Under the new arrangements, we shall continue to have to accommodate the Easter recess in one and a half weeks, and the Christmas recess, running probably to three weeks. So there will be four and a half weeks of recess time—an increase in the amount of recess time falling between Budget day and PCTA day of roughly one week. Of the 20 days extra time available, on a crude analysis one week or seven days is taken by extra recesses, leaving an additional 14 days—13 on the precise mathematics—available for parliamentary scrutiny.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Let us be clear what we are quarrelling about. Our fear is that under the new structure the Finance Bill will not be published until after Christmas
      860
      and that there will be unstoppable pressure to complete the Committee stage before the Easter recess. If the Financial Secretary can say either that the Finance Bill will be published before Christmas—so that we and interested parties may study it over Christmas—or that the Government will be willing to continue the Committee stage after the Easter recess, our objections will be met.
      Mr. Dorrell: I made it clear in Committee, and I repeat, that I cannot give an assurance that in all circumstances the Finance Bill will be published before Christmas. Nor can I give an absolute assurance that in all years, however late Easter falls, the Committee stage will continue after Easter. What if, for example, Easter fell at the end of March? It does not seem inconceivable that the Committee stage could continue after an Easter day falling in March. The key point is that we must leave time after the Committee stage for Report and Third Reading on the Floor of the House and due time for the Bill to be considered briefly in another place.
      If the PCTA date is moved to 5 May as the Government propose, it does not seem to follow that in a normal year Third Reading in this House need be at any time before 30 April. So if the procedure in this House is to close on 30 April and Easter is in March, it is clearly possible to encompass a final week in Committee in April and Report and Third Reading in time for the process to be completed by the end of April.
      I had intended to deal with that point by considering the timetable. The third perspective on the timetable is that under the existing arrangements the Finance Bill has been published in recent years roughly on 15 April. In practice, under the existing arrangements we must complete Third Reading in this House by 25 July, which is three months and 10 days. Under the new arrangements, even if the Finance Bill is published after Christmas—it would be published about 10 January—I do not think that in normal circumstances it would be necessary for us to complete Third Reading in this House before 30 April.
      Under the new arrangements, therefore, the time between publication and Third Reading would be three months and 20 days, whereas under the existing arrangements the time between publication and Third Reading is three months and 10 days. On that analysis, roughly 10 days more parliamentary time would be available for considering the Finance Bill than there is under the existing arrangements.
      I have not sought to argue that under our proposals there will be massive extra time for parliamentary scrutiny. I argue that they broadly replicate our present arrangements and that, in so far as they amend them, they do so by increasing the effective time available for consideration of the issues in this House by making available anything up to 10 days of extra parliamentary time. On that basis, I commend the Government's proposals to the House.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 293.

      Division No. 328]

      [5.24 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Allen, Graham

      Barnes, Harry

      Alton, David

      Barron, Kevin

      861

      Battle, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bell, Stuart

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Gould, Bryan

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Graham, Thomas

      Betts, Clive

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Blair, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Gunnell, John

      Boyes, Roland

      Hain, Peter

      Bradley, Keith

      Hall, Mike

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Hanson, David

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

      Hardy, Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Burden, Richard

      Harvey, Nick

      Byers, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      Caborn, Richard

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hoey, Kate

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Canavan, Dennis

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cann, Jamie

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hutton, John

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Coffey, Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jamieson, David

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Janner, Greville

      Corbett, Robin

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jowell, Tessa

      Cox, Tom

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cryer, Bob

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Cummings, John

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Darling, Alistair

      Litherland, Robert

      Davidson, Ian

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

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

      McAllion, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dowd, Jim

      McKelvey, William

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      McLeish, Henry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Madden, Max

      Eastham, Ken

      Mahon, Alice

      Enright, Derek

      Mandelson, Peter

      Etherington, Bill

      Marek, Dr John

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Martlew, Eric

      Faulds, Andrew

      Maxton, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meacher, Michael

      Fisher, Mark

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Flynn, Paul

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Milburn, Alan

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Miller, Andrew

      Foulkes, George

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Fraser, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fyfe, Maria

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Galloway, George

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Gapes, Mike

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Garrett, John

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      George, Bruce

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      862

      Mudie, George

      Short, Clare

      Mullin, Chris

      Simpson, Alan

      Murphy, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

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

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

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

      O'Hara, Edward

      Snape, Peter

      Olner, William

      Soley, Clive

      O'Neill, Martin

      Spearing, Nigel

      Patchett, Terry

      Spellar, John

      Pendry, Tom

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pike, Peter L.

      Stevenson, George

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Straw, Jack

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, John

      Turner, Dennis

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Tyler, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Vaz, Keith

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Radice, Giles

      Walley, Joan

      Redmond, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Wilson, Brian

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Winnick, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Wise, Audrey

      Rooney, Terry

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Rowlands, Ted

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sydney

      Ancram, Michael

      Clappison, James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ashby, David

      Coe, Sebastian

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Conway, Derek

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baldry, Tony

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Couchman, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cran, James

      Bates, Michael

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

      Beggs, Roy

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Body, Sir Richard

      Devlin, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Booth, Hartley

      Dicks, Terry

      Boswell, Tim

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bowden, Andrew

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowis, John

      Dover, Den

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Duncan, Alan

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brazier, Julian

      Dunn, Bob

      Bright, Graham

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Eggar, Tim

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Elletson, Harold

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Butcher, John

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Butler, Peter

      Evennett, David

      863

      Faber, David

      Lidington, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lightbown, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forman, Nigel

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Maclean, David

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Madel, David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Malone, Gerald

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Mans, Keith

      French, Douglas

      Marland, Paul

      Fry, Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Gale, Roger

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Garnier, Edward

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Mates, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Merchant, Piers

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Milligan, Stephen

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Iain

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hague, William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Norris, Steve

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Harris, David

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Page, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Paice, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Pawsey, James

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Hendry, Charles

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Horam, John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Richards, Rod

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

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Sackville, Tom

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Key, Robert

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knapman, Roger

      Sims, Roger

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Spring, Richard

      Legg, Barry

      Sproat, Iain

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      864

      Steen, Anthony

      Viggers, Peter

      Stern, Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Stewart, Allan

      Walden, George

      Streeter, Gary

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Sumberg, David

      Waller, Gary

      Sweeney, Walter

      Ward, John

      Sykes, John

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Waterson, Nigel

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Watts, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Wells, Bowen

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thomason, Roy

      Willetts, David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wolfson, Mark

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

      Wood, Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Irvine Patrick and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 207

      RESIDENCE: AVAILABLE ACCOMMODATION
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 160, line 24, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 161.
      A Budget that raises taxes, extends value added tax to domestic fuel, readjusts advance corporation tax in such a way as to impose a substantial burden on charities and pension funds, places a 1 per cent. increase on employees' national insurance contributions, refrains from indexing allowances and, in particular, restricts mortgage tax relief and married couple's allowance to the new 20 per cent. tax band, especially when combined with significant increases in excise duties—most noticeably, duties on petrol and cigarettes—is a tax-raising Budget.
      The House now has a rare opportunity to discuss a tax concession. Admittedly, it is one that will cost only some £10 million in 1994–95. Nevertheless, it is a reduction in the tax burden. Over and over again, the Chief Secretary has spoken about the need for deficit reduction, tax increases and public expenditure cuts. Admittedly, he says less about why we are in this position, and he did not make these points so forcefully before the last general election, but he makes them emphatically now.
      Let us take the Chief Secretary at his word. Let us also take at his word the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who said yesterday:
      "If one's country is bust".—[Official Report, 12 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 757.]
      We were also told by the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) that the Budget contains serious errors of judgment. If we are indeed in such difficult circumstances, as even Conservative Members seem to allege that we are, it must be extraordinarily difficult—1 think that we understand the difficulty—for the Government to give a tax break to anyone. However, after careful consideration, the Conservative Government have found a group of people who, even in these difficult times, require a tax concession.
      Who are these people? I know that the most compassionate of my hon. Friends, amazed at the

      865
      discovery of a group of disadvantaged citizens so deserving of relief that even this Government have noticed their plight, will be wondering if enough is being done for those people. Suggestions of food parcels, perhaps, could well emanate from my hon. Friends.
      These people are not the poorest, most downtrodden in our society. This relief that the parliamentary Labour party is seeking to withdraw is to go to people who have substantial means, who are rich—people to whom the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor, used to refer as the internationally mobile. This concession to them is being made at a time when the rest of the people of this country are being urged to tighten their belts.
      The clause weakens the available accommodation test for residency. It is a relief that, were he to return to this country—if only to ask for his money back from the Conservative party—would be available to Mr. Asil Nadir. There are those who think that the Conservative party has already done enough to help Mr. Nadir, but that is clearly not the view of Treasury Ministers. Indeed, his plight—not his flight—and that of those like him was given extra special consideration by the Financial Secretary before the clause was inserted in the Bill.
      In Committee, I was able to make reference to the script for a first-rate Granada Television "World in Action" programme that dealt with tax avoidance and evasion. There was a scene in it—to which I did not refer in Committee but which, I am sure, will inform the debate on the Floor of the House—that included a very familiar landmark, and the commentator said that this was another of Asil Nadir's tax havens. You will be astonished to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this was a shot of the fountain in Trafalgar square. The commentary went on as follows:
      "WORLD IN ACTION has discovered that UK tax rules allowed Nadir a privileged status known as non domicile. So although he was one of the richest men living in Britain he paid comparatively little tax here. But our tax laws allowed Nadir to acquire several homes in Britain. Through an offshore trust he owned a country mansion, Baggrave Hall in Leicestershire."
      The commentator went on to quote a tax partner from Moores Rowland, a Mr. Eastaway, who said:
      "To have a non UK domicile is one of the great secrets of turning the United Kingdom into a tax haven."
      5.45 pm
      I am not sure that the House wants to turn the United Kingdom into a tax haven. I am certainly not sure that, in this time of stringency, when substantial imposts are necessary for all our other fellow citizens, we should be making an albeit relatively modest relaxation in the rules to give money to people who already seem to have rather large sums of money available to them. I do not understand why we should do that, especially in the present economic climate.
      The Financial Secretary, in fairness to him, tried to explain it in Committee. As an explanation of why the clause was in the Bill, he said:
      "It was represented to me, very persuasively, that"—
      the clause—
      "has dissuaded business men—and, indeed, tourists, though my principal concern is business men—from including this country in the range of options that they consider when making business decisions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 24 June 1993; c. 592.]
      The words that stick in my mind from that speech are "very persuasively". I am not certain what the Financial Secretary meant by those words, but "Business Age"
      866
      magazine draws our attention to some £71 million worth of unexplained money in the Conservative party's accounts. "Business Age" has provided a helpful guide to the big donors and their possible motivation, on the assumption that that motivation extends beyond disinterested public spirit.
      The reason most frequently cited for giving these large donations to the Conservative party is that it is in recognition and support of the Government's retention of favourable tax breaks for United Kingdom overseas subjects. Those donors are just the sort of people who could benefit from the changes that we are now discussing.
      What sort of an argument is £71 million? To borrow an expression from the Financial Secretary, it is a very persuasive argument. It is my contention that if, in difficult times, it is necessary to increase the tax burden on our fellow citizens, any concession has to be very carefully considered. This is a concession to very rich people who do not, in any event, pay their fair share of tax in this country. We make this concession at a time when we are being asked, in the same Finance Bill, to make the most regressive changes to the value added tax regime that it would be possible to devise.
      Let me make it clear that I would not give these tax-dodging scoundrels the benefit of this clause in any event. It is a handout from the public purse that cannot be justified. In the present circumstances, it is positively grotesque.
      Mr. Beith: I share the view of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that this is a worrying aspect of the Finance Bill. Like him, I studied the "Business Age" list of a series of donors to the Conservative party and was very struck by the way in which the motives were listed. There appeared again and again the motive of supporting the maintenance of tax breaks for United Kingdom subjects overseas. There were one or two large donors whose motives were described as completely unexplained. But there was a very large group—it includes people who, I believe, would say this quite clearly, and probably publicly, if asked—who were grateful to the present Government of the United Kingdom for maintaining a situation in which they felt that they were relatively favourably treated under United Kingdom tax laws. The sort of concession which is at the heart of that is the ability to take advantage of the residence rules.
      It is difficult for Ministers to detach themselves from these issues when explaining them to the House. It is particularly difficult for the Paymaster General. When he was the Conservative party's vice-chairman and working at Conservative central office, I think that all these things must have passed him by. I cannot imagine that he was involved with any of the mysterious, undisclosed accounts that were published by river companies. I think that they just stuck him behind a desk, that it all passed him by and that it was handled by other people. I suspect that a lot of that goes on in Conservative central office.
      What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that a large number of people overseas are now prepared to put very substantial sums of money in the way of the Conservative party, if it is considered appropriate to do so, by way of accounts held overseas whose purposes are unidentified. Some people and some groups are prepared

      867
      to do that because they like the tax treatment that is afforded to United Kingdom subjects who are resident abroad.
      There are other motives. There are those who want a favourable regulatory regime for their companies. Others are concerned about foreign policy issues. The single largest group, however, appears to be those who find this kind of tax treatment advantageous to them. When the Minister seeks to explain this, he will be judged not simply by his explanation but against the background of the substantial donations that have been made to his party by people who like this sort of thing.
      Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) sounded more than mildly implausible when whipping themselves into a synthetic fury over this question. If it were true that the Government were interested in finding ways of safeguarding nefarious activities of the kind about which they are both concerned, it is profoundly improbable that it would have been this Government who tabled a proposal in 1988 to revise precisely the rules that apply now to the taxation of United Kingdom residents who are not domiciled in this country.
      The issues that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman have hinted at are on the table and in the public domain at least in part because the Government published a consultative document in 1988 that launched public discussion of exactly the issues that they raised. Neither of them, however, chose to tell the House about the results of that consultation. Virtually with one voice, the representations to the Government on that subject, from those of all political persuasions, were that it would be damaging to Britain's interests to go down the route that had been suggested in the consultative document, a document tabled on the authority of Ministers of this Government in 1988.
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: Most of the representations—not all of them, I accept—were from people who would be disadvantaged if the changes were made.
      Mr. Dorrell: That hardly distinguishes this representation from any other representations in which the Government are engaged. My point is that the overwhelming majority of the representations were hostile to the ideas that Ministers of this Government had tabled.
      Arguments were advanced in principle against the proposals. The arguments that were advanced—by, I stress, people of all political points of view—were precisely from the perspective of the disadvantaged citizen, the perspective that was espoused so eloquently by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East. The argument was—I find it persuasive—that to go down the route envisaged in the 1988 consultative document would make this country a less attractive place in which internationally mobile business men, whom the hon. Gentleman correctly identified as a legitimate target for consideration, could do business.
      It was for that reason that the proposals in the consultative document were dropped. The announcement was made in 1989. As far as I know, there was no great
      868
      outcry from either the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats when the decision was announced, because it was recognised to be in response to public concern.
      The clause is motivated by precisely the same perspective and the same thought processes as those that led to the dropping of the 1988 proposal—that when considering who should pay tax in this country, the Government ought to pay regard to the proper priorities if we are to attract internationally mobile business activity to the United Kingdom. It was for that reason that we dropped the 1988 proposal. We did so in response to public consultation. Precisely the same reasons led us to table the clause; therefore, I oppose amendment No. 28.
      I want tax to be raised fairly from people who are resident in this country. I also want there to be a tax system that is friendly to internationally mobile businesses. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East made it clear that he regards that as a secondary objective. I regard it as a primary objective.
      Amendment negatived.

    Schedule 2

      VALUE ADDED TAX: PENALTIES ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 16, in page 167, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert—
      '(aa) in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of that section, for the words from "have power" to the end of that paragraph there shall be substituted "have power under section 15A below to reduce a penalty under this section,"; and'.—[Sir John Cope.]

    Schedule 5

      REMOVAL EXPENSES AND BENEFITS
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 200, line 26, leave out `6th April 1993' and insert `4th April 1994'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 200, line 28, leave out `6th April 1993' and insert '4th April 1994'.
      No. 11, in page 200, line 30, leave out `6th April 1993' and insert '4th April 1994'.
      Mr. Beith: This group of amendments is all about relocation expenses and their tax treatment. The amendments would delay the implementation of the new regime for taxing relocation expenses.
      The issue was dealt with fairly extensively in Committee, but we were unable then to persuade the Government to raise the cap that they have placed on those relocation expenses that are non-taxable. We proposed that that tax threshold should be very much higher to reflect the real relocation costs. We propose in the amendments that there should at least be a transitional period.
      The Government have just told us how important it is to provide favourable—indeed, generous—tax treatment to internationally mobile business men, yet they have failed to accept the case put to them by British industry that there should be more favourable tax treatment of those who are forced to move if business in this country is to be successful and efficient.
      We are talking about firms that need to relocate people, if they are to succeed. We are referring to firms that have

      869
      to cope with major changes in their industry and in their markets. We are referring also to firms that are having to adapt and to firms that are feeling the consequences of the recession, yet they are trying to keep people in employment. Often, the only way in which they can keep people in employment and avoid redundancy is by relocation. They may relocate a whole plant to another site, or they may strengthen, through importing skilled people, a plant that would otherwise go to the wall. Relocation of this kind is important if businesses are to be flexible and able to adapt.
      Relocation is difficult to achieve in the United Kingdom context, because of our housing problems. The rented housing sector is largely dominated by local authority housing, which makes it very difficult for people to move from one area to another. The private housing sector has been severely affected by the consequences of the recession. When, therefore, a company says to somebody, "We want you to move," he is likely to reply, "I can't afford to move on my wages." The company then has to construct a package that makes it feasible for that person to move.
      The package will often involve help with removal expenses, but that is only the beginning of the story. It may be some time before the person concerned can sell his house or buy a house in the area where he has been relocated. All sorts of additional ancillary costs that affect families may be involved. Most of the firms involved—for example, Barclays bank, which does a great deal of this, estimate that the cost of relocation is between £20,000 and £30,000. That is the average cost of many of these removal and relocation packages. The Government, however, have set their face against accepting that that is the average cost of relocation packages. We seek to persuade them at least to make provision for a transitional period.
      I have said that the Government have set their face against relocation expenses at this level. That is not quite the case. Among people in the public sector, there has been considerable concern about how, given the provision, they will relocate. Several Government Departments are involved in substantial relocation activity. Indeed, hon. Members of all parties have been trying to persuade the Government to relocate some of their work—to transfer it from the south-east to the areas of highest unemployment, for example.
      6 pm
      Other factors are involved in the relocation of Government Departments. Am I right in thinking that the Treasury has approved the grossing up of relocation expenses above the £8,000 limit paid to civil servants? Is it true that Departments know perfectly well that £8,000 is well below the real figure? I believe that they know perfectly well that much larger relocation packages will be necessary. It seems to me that Departments have been told by the Treasury that £8,000 is a figure plucked out of the air to be put in the Finance Bill. It appears that the Treasury is saying, "If you find that it is necessary to pay people £15,000, £20,000 or £25,000, you must gross up the amount. You must pay that amount plus what is necessary to bring it up to the amount originally intended." It is nonsensical if the Treasury itself—the very Department responsible for the Bill—has already admitted that the amount is too small and if Departments are already being told to get around the rules so that people may receive the much larger amounts that they know are involved.
      870
      It is likely that the Government's proposal will be harmful to industry. Firms will have difficulty with relocation packages unless they adopt the strategy that the Treasury is suggesting to Government Departments. Labour mobility will be harmed and relocation costs will be increased. Firms will have to gross up, as the Treasury suggests. There may be even harm to inward investment, which often involves foreign firms in the relocation of personnel in order to have key people at a new plant. Firms already struggling with relocation because they must concentrate operations on a single site will face higher costs. Training will be undermined as firms lay off partially trained people and re-employ to save on the expenses of relocating skilled people.
      In these circumstances, the very least we must ask of the Government is that they provide a little more time for industry to adapt to the new and very restrictive regime. The proposals extend to a 12-page schedule, so they will clearly be quite complicated to implement. A period of grace would at least be of some help. If a new system were started on 6 April, there would be a period of notice of only two weeks—the interval between the Budget and the beginning of the financial year. No business plans relocation on the basis of a two-week period. Relocations are planned on a time scale of months or years. Many relocations already in progress have been planned long ago. In some cases, employees will be liable to tax on, say, £25,000—or £25,000 minus £8,000—while in others they will not, depending on the removal date. Some people in a firm will be adversely affected. If there were a period of notice—if this provision did not have to be implemented until next April—firms could plan around the scheme; thus, we could avoid a situation in which some people involved in a particular relocation exercise were much more favourably treated, from a tax point of view, than others.
      Industry ought to be given some time to adapt. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not further distract the Financial Secretary as this is a matter that industry regards as very important. A period of grace would at least help us through the worst of the aftermath of the recession. The Government's view—we all hope that they are right—is that recovery is under way. A further year before the falling of the axe on tax-free relocation expenses would give a little more opportunity to firms still adapting as a direct consequence of recession, so that they would not have to abandon relocation packages on the ground that they could not afford them, or gross up at considerably greater cost.
      It is clear that Departments recognise that the Government's £8,000 is inadequate. Obviously, the Treasury is aware of that fact. Industry feels very strongly about the matter—I have in mind the Confederation of British Industry, the Engineering Employers Federation and many other organisations. This is a last chance for the Government at least to provide a little more time before implementation of their proposal.
      Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he favours a system that encourages flexibility where it is necessary for a business to move its operations. He agrees that unnecessary obstacles should not be put in the way of such mobility. I agree. It is important that the system be sufficiently flexible to facilitate mobility where it is clearly in an employer's interests to move an activity from one part of the country to another. But that is rather

      871
      different from the notion that mobility is a public good, that employers should receive tax treatment to encourage them to make some of their activities mobile. When an employer decides to move an activity from one area to another, he should not have to deal with unnecessary obstacles. However, the tax system should not in any way encourage such a decision. In this regard, the system and the public interest should be entirely neutral.
      The changes that we are introducing remove what has amounted to a mild tax subsidy for a particular type of activity. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that some people regard £25,000 removal packages as the norm. I simply do not believe that that is the normal cost of moving an individual from one part of the country to another. If it is the average, how is it that anybody ever moves house other than when paid by his employer to do so? Hon. Members ought to bring their critical faculties to bear on questions that we debate. Representations from interested groups to the effect that the average removal cost is £25,000 should be subjected to critical analysis. If they were analysed critically, they would be found to be wanting. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about grossing up in the case of public sector employees. That is not unknown, although we examine cases critically. When grossing up takes place, whether in this or in any other context, it is for Departments to decide what they need to do within the resources available to them. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made the position very clear in the Standing Committee: he said that he would not entertain a suggestion that extra resources should flow to a Department that wanted to move people and to pay individuals' tax associated with the removal. Indeed, this flows from the policy stance that the Government have consistently adopted in respect of grossing up in the case of civil servants' tax bills.
      Mr. Beith: I accept that no additional resources will be provided to enable Departments to gross up, but I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to confirm that Departments are examining, or have had to examine, relocation packages of more than £8,000, for which grossing up must be considered.
      Mr. Dorrell: If a Department chose to gross up, it would be because it had decided that it needed to make a payment to a civil servant in respect of a removal in excess of £8,000. It is not a question whether the figure in excess of £8,000 includes an amount that is properly defined as betterment and, therefore, properly taxable. Spending Departments make payments to civil servants all the time, which are subject to tax. The question is not whether the payment is exceptional but whether it should be subject to tax. Against that background, we recognise that in order to move civil servants, or to encourage people in other walks of life to move, grossing up payments will be made. The principle is that the payment includes an element of betterment which is properly subjected to income tax. That principle underlies the provisions.
      The Government have tabled what we believe are sensible proposals for transition. I cannot commend the amendment. The House should be aware that its practical effect would be not to extend the transition period but to abolish it. The Government have already withdrawn the extra statutory concessions with effect from 5 April this
      872
      year. which were the arrangements whereby removal expenses were previously exempt from tax. It is only by allowing the Bill to be passed in its present form that the transitional provisions would reach the statute book. Although the right hon. Gentleman may have preferred a longer transitional period, I hope that he will recognise that the effect of the amendment would be not to lengthen but to abolish the transitional arrangements proposed by the Government. Against that background, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Beith: I do not accept the Minister's technical argument. We know that the matter proceeded on the basis that the extra statutory concession was withdrawn after a decision by Ministers. The extra statutory concession could have been used and could still be used as a vehicle for concession.
      I do not accept the Minister's rather cavalier approach to grossing up. In this context, as in most others, grossing up is a device to ensure that what the employee and the employer—in this case, the employer being the Government—think might reasonably be a tax-free payment is still treated as if it were a tax-free payment and that the sum that the person involved receives in his hand is the same as if the payment had been tax free. It is a device, and one that should not be commended by the Treasury. The fact that the Treasury commends it suggests that the Treasury recognises internally that it has gone too far in setting the £8,000 limit.
      For the Minister to argue that the issue should be dealt with in a tax-neutral way, and that it is wrong to treat relocation as a public good and therefore to allow any sort of concession, is an argument against having even a £8,000 limit. The logic of his case is that there should be no concession at all.
      Ministers should be cautious about using the public good argument in matters of mobility. As they are transported to work in their chauffeur-driven cars on journeys on which they pay no tax, unlike other people, I hope that they will recline in their leather-covered seats—if they qualify for cars that have such seats—and ask themselves whether there is really any public good in their journeys being tax free. They should realise that other people have been told by their employers that if they want to keep their jobs they must move to the other end of the country, when the most that employers can put together to make such a move feasible, and without their paying tax, is £8,000. Otherwise, all the costs that employers find it necessary to subsidise, such as the cost of keeping two houses going until one can be sold, will be treated as a taxable benefit and the person involved will be taxed on it. That is not reasonable, and it is a perfectly sound argument for carrying the protest to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 300.

      Division No. 329]

      [6.13 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Barnes, Harry

      Cryer, Bob

      Berth, Rt Hon A. J.

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Graham, Thomas

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hoey, Kate

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mòn)

      873

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Salmond, Alex

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Skinner, Dennis

      Loyden, Eddie

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mahon, Alice

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

      Rendel, David

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Day, Stephen

      Alexander, Richard

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Devlin, Tim

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Ancram, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Arbuthnot, James

      Dover, Den

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Ashby, David

      Dunn, Bob

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Atkins, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Eggar, Tim

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Elletson, Harold

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evennett, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Faber, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fabricant, Michael

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Body, Sir Richard

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Booth, Hartley

      Forman, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Forth, Eric

      Bowis, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bright, Graham

      French, Douglas

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gale, Roger

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Garnier, Edward

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Butcher, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butler, Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gorst, John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Cash, William

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Clappison, James

      Hague, William

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Colvin, Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Congdon, David

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Harris, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Couchman, James

      Hayes, Jerry

      Cran, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

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

      Hendry, Charles

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Hicks, Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      874

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Horam, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

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

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunter, Andrew

      Riddick, Graham

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jack, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jessel, Toby

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Key, Robert

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Sackville, Tom

      Knapman, Roger

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shersby, Michael

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sims, Roger

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Legg, Barry

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lightbown, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spring, Richard

      Luff, Peter

      Sproat, Iain

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Maclean, David

      Stephen, Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Madel, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sumberg, David

      Malone, Gerald

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mans, Keith

      Sykes, John

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marlow, Tony

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      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

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Milligan. Stephen

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mills, Iain

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

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Needham, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Walden, George

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waller, Gary

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Ward, John

      Norris, Steve

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Waterson, Nigel

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Watts, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Page, Richard

      Whitney, Ray

      Paice, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Pawsey, James

      Wilkinson, John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Willetts, David

      875

      Wilshire, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

      Wood, Timothy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 20

      LLOYD'S UNDERWRITERS: SPECIAL RESERVE FUNDS
      Amendment made: No. 6, in 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 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.'.—[Mr. MacKay.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 294, leave out lines 27 to 29.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 312.

      Division No. 330]

      [6.27 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cox, Tom

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Cryer, Bob

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Allen, Graham

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Alton, David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Darling, Alistair

      Armstrong, Hilary

      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

      Dewar, Donald

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dixon, Don

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dobson, Frank

      Bell, Stuart

      Dowd, Jim

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Betts, Clive

      Eastham, Ken

      Blair, Tony

      Enright, Derek

      Boateng, Paul

      Etherington, Bill

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Boyes, Roland

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bradley, Keith

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Faulds, Andrew

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

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

      Fisher, Mark

      Burden, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Foulkes, George

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fraser, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Gapes, Mike

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, John

      Cann, Jamie

      George, Bruce

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gerrard, Neil

      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)

      Connarty, Michael

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Corbett, Robin

      Gunnell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hain, Peter

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hall, Mike

      Cousins, Jim

      Hanson, David

      876

      Hardy, Peter

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      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

      Patchett, Terry

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pike, Peter L.

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Hutton, John

      Prescott, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Ingram, Adam

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Radice, Giles

      Jamieson, David

      Redmond, Martin

      Janner, Greville

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jowell, Tessa

      Rooney, Terry

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Salmond, Alex

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Leighton, Ron

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Short, Clare

      Livingstone, Ken

      Simpson, Alan

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Loyden, Eddie

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

      McAllion, John

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

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Snape, Peter

      McCartney, Ian

      Soley, Clive

      Macdonald, Calum

      Spearing, Nigel

      McKelvey, William

      Spellar, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McLeish, Henry

      Stevenson, George

      McNamara, Kevin

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Madden, Max

      Straw, Jack

      Mahon, Alice

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mandelson, Peter

      Vaz, Keith

      Marek, Dr John

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Walley, Joan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Martlew, Eric

      Welsh, Andrew

      Maxton, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Meacher, Michael

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Meale, Alan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Winnick, David

      Milburn, Alan

      Wise, Audrey

      Miller, Andrew

      Worthington, Tony

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Morley, Elliot

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Dennis Turner.

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Alexander, Richard

      Atkins, Robert

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amess, David

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Ancram, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Ashby, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      877

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      French, Douglas

      Body, Sir Richard

      Fry, Peter

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gale, Roger

      Booth, Hartley

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Boswell, Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Bowden, Andrew

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bowis, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gorst, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Bright, Graham

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hague, William

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burns, Simon

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Burt, Alistair

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Butcher, John

      Hannam, Sir John

      Butler, Peter

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harris, David

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Harvey, Nick

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cash, William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayes, Jerry

      Churchill, Mr

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clappison, James

      Hendry, Charles

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Colvin, Michael

      Horam, John

      Congdon, David

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Conway, Derek

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

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dover, Den

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Duncan, Alan

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Key, Robert

      Dunn, Bob

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Eggar, Tim

      Knapman, Roger

      Elletson, Harold

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evennett, David

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Faber, David

      Legg, Barry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Luff, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      MacKay, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Maclean, David

      878

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shersby, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sims, Roger

      Madel, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Malone, Gerald

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Mans, Keith

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Marland, Paul

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Marlow, Tony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Spring, Richard

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Sproat, Iain

      Mates, Michael

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Steen, Anthony

      Merchant, Piers

      Stephen, Michael

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Stern, Michael

      Milligan, Stephen

      Stewart, Allan

      Mills, Iain

      Streeter, Gary

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sumberg, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Sykes, John

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Needham, Richard

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thomason, Roy

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Norris, Steve

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Thurnham, Peter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

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

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Page, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Paice, James

      Trend, Michael

      Patnick, Irvine

      Trotter, Neville

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Pawsey, James

      Tyler, Paul

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pickles, Eric

      Viggers, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Walden, George

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Waller, Gary

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Ward, John

      Rendel, David

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Richards, Rod

      Watts, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wells, Bowen

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Whitney, Ray

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wilkinson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Willetts, David

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wilshire, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sackville, Tom

      Wood, Timothy

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Yeo, Tim

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.38 pm
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

      879
      It is some time since the Budget. We have been involved since then in detailed discussion of the Bill in Committee, and it is perhaps timely to set the Finance (No. 2) Bill once more in its strategic context.
      Recently, there has been a lot of good news about the economy. We have had growth in the gross domestic product for the past three quarters and encouraging statistics on inflation and industrial production. We have seen the latest figures for retail sales rising by 3 per cent., and there has been good performance on exports. Business optimism is at its highest level for 10 years and today's figures for manufacturing output show that it rose by 1·8 per cent. in May. In the first five months of the year, manufacturing output recovered by more than half the total loss it sustained during the recession. In the past four months, even the figures for unemployment have been encouraging, very much against the expectations of many commentators.
      The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecasts that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major European Community country in 1993, and that that will be repeated in 1994. Those are all encouraging statistics. The principal threat to our economic prospects now comes from the size of our fiscal deficit.
      The threat posed by the size of the deficit is not removed by the series of good figures that we have had, although recovery is now clearly established across a range of indicators in the economy. Part of our deficit is caused by the cycle, by reduced receipts to the Government, and by extra money that the Government have to pay out in benefits to the unemployed. None the less, the Government have made provision in their new public spending plans to count separately those elements that are due to the cycle, and to focus upon the new control total.
      Whatever the extent of the cyclical elements within the present fiscal deficit, to say that some elements are cyclical is not the same as saying that they will unwind automatically at the end of the recession. If one went to one's bank manager and said that one's large overdraft did not matter because it was merely cyclical, the bank manager would not be impressed, and would not let one off paying the debt interest.
      That is the position in which the Government find themselves. The burden of debt interest is rising sharply and, over the next few years, it will rise by £10 billion a year. That is money that cannot be devoted to the public spending programmes that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members might regard as desirable.
      There are important reasons why the Government should maintain control of the public sector deficit. I do not believe that the people of this country who have had to make great sacrifices during the recession, or those in business who have had to retrench during the recession, have any desire to see their Government living beyond their means on a sustained basis, and there can be no moral case for doing so.
      That is why the Government have developed a medium-term strategy for dealing with our public sector borrowing requirement. We have also embarked on establishing a rhythm of good decision making, which is a vital ingredient for the restoration of confidence.
      880
      The autumn statement was made in November by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). It set out for three years ahead the Government's public spending plans. In March this year, the Budget set taxation policy in a medium-term context, setting out the tax increases that will occur over the next three years.
      That has been translated into the Finance (No. 2) Bill, consideration of which we are completing today. I believe that the rhythm of decision making—of decisions well thought out, well presented and stuck to—is a vital ingredient in restoring confidence. Its effects can now be seen in growing confidence, in the business optimism survey, which I have already quoted, which is the best for 10 years, and in the performance of the markets, with recent pressure on the pound being, if anything, upward rather than downward.
      Mr. Betts: Of the £50 billion deficit this year, will the Chief Secretary tell the House how much he regards as cyclical, which will unwind naturally as part of any recovery, and how much is structural and will not unwind? Does he accept that there could be considerable damage to the unwinding of the cyclical element if the Government acted at the wrong time in the cycle to tackle the structural element?
      Mr. Portillo: I should make it clear that to say that something is cyclical and that it will unwind is not the same thing. For example, the increase in the burden of debt interest is clearly cyclical, inasmuch as it is caused by the fact that the Government are borrowing more because they are spending more and receiving less. The fact that we have made those extra borrowings will not lead, at the end of the recession and when recovery is well under way, to our being let off the debt interest payment. The debt interest payment will still have to be made on the borrowings that have been incurred. So that which is cyclical and that which will unwind are not the same.
      That is why, although one could make guesses about the cyclical element within the PSBR, the Government are rightly wary of pursuing that argument too far, because they recognise that not all the elements will unwind at the end of the period.
      The Government are headed in the direction of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement by three routes: growth in the economy, which will help to reduce the cyclical elements to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) referred and which will mean that there will be less to spend on social security and that the Government's receipts will increase; the constraint of public spending; and the tax rises announced in the Budget.
      I recognise that some of the measures in the Bill are unpopular with my hon. Friends and in the country. That is why I should like to thank my hon. Friends for the support that they have given to the measures in the Bill. It is in no way satisfying to me to have to propose tax increases to my hon. Friends, but I hope that at least it has dealt with the myth that, in some way, to raise taxes is an easy option, whereas to constrain public spending is not.
      Both constraining public spending and raising taxes are extremely difficult. My hon. Friends have been willing to support the difficult measures proposed in the Bill because they value the objective of achieving, above all, sound public finances. They are committed to restoring the

      881
      Government's financies. They recognise that the Government must not live beyond their means, and that that is what is expected of us by the people we govern.
      Fairness is extremely important in the package that we put together. My hon. Friends have found difficult the proposals to extend VAT to fuel and power. I remind them that we have taken care in the Budget and the Bill to ensure that the extra taxes that we have to raise fall proportionately across the various divisions of income.
      In the full year of the effects of the Bill, we will be raising an extra £10·5 billion of revenue. Of that, only £2·3 billion comes from the extension of VAT to fuel and power. The money will also come from the changed taxation of dividends, the change in taxation for the married couples allowance for those on higher tax rates, changes in taxation on company cars and the different treatment of mortgage interest relief, again confined to 20 per cent., and therefore affecting in particular those people on higher rates of tax.
      Therefore, I believe that we have produced a package that is fair to people across the income ranges and I think it has been recognised as such by independent commentators.
      Ms Harriet Harman: Since the Chief Secretary says that fairness is important, can he tell the House, and in particular his hon. Friends whom he will ask to vote to impose VAT on gas and electricity, how much money he will put into the compensation scheme to ensure that it does not disadvantage the poor, the elderly and those with disabilities?
      Mr. Portillo: No, I cannot give an exact answer. The appropriate time to make that announcement will be in the autumn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is under an obligation to make an uprating statement to the House in the autumn, and when he does so he will take into account all the factors which at the time affect his judgment about what the appropriate uprating should be. I do not believe that it is right to try to prejudice the decision that is best taken at that time.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: The Chief Secretary said that there were three routes for controlling the Budget deficit—restraining spending, increasing taxes and growth. He did not give any idea of the proportions that he thought would be contributed by each of those avenues. Can he give us a broad-brush idea of, for example, how much of the PSBR he expects to be dealt with by increased growth?
      Mr. Portillo: The present prospects for the course of the PSBR and all the assumptions on growth and on other matters are set out in the Red Book. They show a declining path for the PSBR over the next five years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to study those assumptions, he will find them all set out. What can be answered with absolute precision is the contribution to be made from taxation, which is an extra £6·5 billion in 1994–95, and £10·5 billion in 1995–96.
      The Government are concerned not just with borrowing, important though that is, but also with the level of public spending. That has now reached a level of around 45 per cent. of GDP. The Government believe that the burden imposed by public spending on the
      882
      wealth-creating sector should be kept to a minimum. If that burden is allowed to grow too much, it will choke off the wealth-creating sector.
      We believe that those who create the wealth in our society should be left with the lion's share of that wealth. We do not believe that the state has a pre-emptive right to help itself to more than half of what is produced by the people of the country.
      The Government are wary of the burden that is imposed by the state, and we have therefore now embarked upon a new public spending round. We confirmed, following last month's Cabinet meeting, that the new control total figures in cash that we intend to achieve for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are the same as those that were announced at the time of last year's autumn statement and which were confirmed in the Red Book, published at the time of the Budget.
      The targets that we have set ourselves are challenging—perhaps more challenging than my hon. Friends realise. They assume virtually no growth in real terms, either between this year and next year or between next year and the year after.
      Within the total of public spending that has been so restricted, important pressures have been set up by programmes that are demand-led. In particular, I think of education; many more students are predicted to go into higher education in the years ahead. There are also the demands from social security, which is far and away the largest public spending programme.
      The task that faces us is to find ways of reducing the trend rate of growth of programmes. If public spending is limited as a total to zero growth in real terms, but some programmes within it, such as social security, are growing by 3 per cent. in real terms, that obviously sets up a problem. We must reduce the trend rate of growth of those programmes, and probably make savings in other programmes.
      I have been gratified by the support that my hon. Friends have given to the Government's objectives for the control of public spending. Their support makes the task a great deal easier. I hope that, when we come to propose specific measures to the House, we shall find the same support for the specific measures which are necessary to deliver those totals which have the support of my hon. Friends. Public spending control is important, because it plays a vital part in establishing Britain's competitiveness.
      During the 1980s, Britain's proportion of GDP that was taken up by public spending moved from close to and sometimes above the EC average to a level well below the EC average, and much closer. to the American average, although still some way above the Japanese average. That is still true today.
      The amount of public spending within GDP is an important component in the competitiveness of this country. It has enabled us to run low rates of taxation that are attractive to investors and to people who want to do business, and has also provided good incentives to people in this country who are doing business. We forget the attraction of low rates of direct taxation at our peril.
      The Bill is crafted to impose the minimum disincentive upon our economy, and to maintain incentives to help industry to keep costs low. Of all the recent statistics on the British economy, the improvement in competitiveness has been the most satisfying and perhaps the most important. We have seen productivity grow by 8 per cent. in the past year to its highest ever level. Unit labour costs have fallen

      883
      by about 3 per cent., whereas German unit labour costs rose last year by 10 per cent. The wage increases in British industry today are lower than at any time for 25 years.
      I pay tribute to British management for many of those achievements. One would not expect productivity to rise during a recession. One would expect businesses to find it difficult to cut their costs as fast as they are losing orders. But British business has improved productivity to a record level and, as a consequence, we expect that competitiveness will improve by 20 per cent. in a single year. We also expect British business to improve its share of world trade for the first time in three decades.
      Exports are at a record level, up by 6·5 per cent. on a year ago. Competitiveness should concern not only this country but the rest of the EC. The Community has been out-performed in economic terms by Japan in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The EC was also out-performed by the United States in the 1980s. The prospect, I am afraid, is that the EC will continue to be outperformed by both the US and Japan.
      That is why it is important to maintain competitiveness and protect incentives in the way that the Bill does. It is also important, of course, that we remain firmly outside the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, which would drive up our costs to the highest levels in Europe, and would affect our competitiveness.
      Mr. Beith: The Minister pays tribute to British management. What about the British workers? They, after all, have shown great flexibility and have adapted to new technologies. A fair proportion of their colleagues and friends have now found themselves out of work as part of the process of bringing about lower costs for some manufacturing companies.
      Mr. Portillo: I agree that the costs of the recession have been felt by everyone in Britain. That is one of the reasons why the Government must not be the only institution in Britain not to feel the effects of the recession.
      I recognise that immense costs have been paid by those who have become unemployed. I also recognise the flexibility of the British labour market, which is and will continue to be one of its great strengths in the years ahead. It may be too early to tell, but one of the reasons why the unemployment figures have turned may be the greater flexibility of the United Kingdom labour market. If so, I pay tribute to both management and to work force.
      I also pay tribute, if I may, to Government policies, which have, in the face of opposition from the Opposition parties, created a more flexible and more responsive labour market, which has enabled Britain to be competitive and unemployment to fall.
      I hope that unemployment falls more quickly, as the recovery comes upon the economy, than it did in the 1980s. All the strategies that I have talked about are clearly exemplified within the Finance Bill, and demonstrate the Government's clear medium-term policy for the British economy.
      I am bound to ask myself, "What has been offered to us by the Opposition? What have they put up by way of reasonable alternatives during discussions on the Bill?" First of all, I turn to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). Ideally, a Chief Secretary to the Treasury should be flinty-faced, stony-hearted and odious. I believe that I
      884
      fit the bill. But the shadow Chief Secretary also should be flinty-faced, stony-hearted and odious. To what extent does the hon. Lady fit the bill? Is she flinty-faced? No, she is kind and radiant-faced. Is she stony-hearted? No, she is open-hearted. She is generous to a fault. She wants to spend money on any good cause that is put her way. Those are not the natural instincts of a Chief Secretary.
      Is the hon. Lady odious? Do Opposition spokesmen tremble over their pens when writing their speeches, worrying that they may inadvertently commit the Labour party to a new promise on public spending that has not been approved by the shadow Chief Secretary? I fear that they do not fear the hon. Lady. Indeed, I am afraid that they could not fear the hon. Lady. I am tempted to say that she has fragrance, and fragrance is not something which any Chief Secretary or shadow Chief Secretary should have.
      My hon. Friends may protest that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) may appear better qualified for the job of shadow Chief Secretary. He is Grim Gordon, Gloomy Gordon, Glowering Gordon—indeed, anything other than Gay Gordon. He probably would make an admirable shadow Chief Secretary. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is incumbent upon him to come up with an economic policy. What have we had from the hon. Gentleman? He wishes to spend the receipts that are held by local authorities. He wishes, he says, to bring down unemployment to bring about a recovery. Both those aims demonstrate such complete economic illiteracy that I want to share it with the House.
      If one were to spend the receipts of local authorities, which have after all been set aside against their debts, one would increase public borrowing and public spending. To say that one would be able to bring about recovery by reducing unemployment is nothing but a fudge. The House knows perfectly well that a recovery produced by the economic policies that we follow can reduce unemployment. It is not possible to reverse the process and say that one can reduce unemployment and thus bring about recovery.
      The economy needs sound finances. It needs policies for sound finances. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East offers sound-bite finances. His policies were described by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) as sound bites strung together, and they do not constitute an economic policy. Unfortunately, that is all that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has to offer.
      Moving up the scale, we come to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Leader of the Opposition. He is the man who stands at the Opposition Dispatch Box and amuses the House. He is the man who makes speeches about hotels falling off cliffs and the grand national not starting properly, blames that on the Government and gets a laugh. One would think that he was auditioning to be the host of "Clive Anderson Talks Back". He is supposed to be auditioning for the role of Prime Minister. It is an extremely sad reflection on him that he is unable to come up to scratch. All around the country—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to sound like a spoilsport, but, before the right hon. Gentleman continues, I must ask what this has to do with the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
      Mr. Portillo: The connection with the Finance Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that, during the passage of the Finance Bill, we had hoped to hear an exposition from the Opposition spokesmen about the Labour party's policies. Unfortunately, and to conclude this section, we have instead found a complete failure by the Opposition to put themselves forward as a reasonable Opposition and an alternative Government.
      There is not a boardroom, factory floor or council estate in the country where any confidence is felt in the policies of the Opposition, even when people have read carefully the proceedings of the Finance Bill upstairs.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: So that the House can get him off the hook of that last passage, will the Chief Secretary now turn to serious matters and discuss the situation that will arise in the autumn when we will have the combined Budget? He has decided so much of the public expenditure that is settled for the next few years, much of which cannot be changed during the autumn Budget. What he can do in that Budget is raise taxation. He cannot adjust the balance between expenditure and revenue, because so much of the expenditure is already settled on.
      Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman, by his tone, puts that forward as a criticism. The Government established a medium-term strategy for public spending, which is set out in the Finance Bill, and in all logic it will now bring together in a single statement both our plans for public spending—the details of how those totals are to be achieved—and our plans for taxation—any changes that may need to be made from the plans set out in the Finance Bill.
      The right hon. Gentleman is criticising, apparently, the medium-term clarity that has been established by the Government. That clarity is, in my view, one of the great underlying strengths of our approach. That is also the view of the markets, which have shown their confidence over recent months.
      Our economic strategy, as shown by the Bill, is clear. It extends beyond the three years covered by the public expenditure survey and beyond the years covered in the Bill. It clearly tells the nation what the Government want to achieve over the medium and long-term. We have a strategy for low inflation, and a clear medium-term framework to restore public finances. We have set fixed spending ceilings, above which we will not go. The Bill contains further measures for tackling the deficit in future.
      We look forward to the unified Budget on which the right hon. Gentleman has just questioned me. In it, we will continue the steady and purposeful progress that we have made in achieving our economic objectives of low inflation, restored public finances and sustained growth. We shall make our choices. However difficult they may be, we shall make them. There will be many difficult decisions to take, but they will be taken well. We shall confirm that rhythm of good decison making about which I have spoken and which now underpins confidence.
      A party that does not choose, or a party that cannot choose, is a party that does not govern. We are not afraid to choose, and that is why we now govern. When the critical economic decisions ahead have been made, the Government will present their package to the House, and
      886
      we will then look to my right hon. and hon. Friends to support that package—as I know they will support the Finance Bill which is before us.
      7.5 pm
      Ms Harman: The Finance Bill makes it clear beyond all doubt that, because of the Government's failure on the economy over the past 14 years, the Conservative party is now the party of high taxation, high borrowing and high unemployment. Although the rhetoric is still there—we heard it again tonight—and although it was in the election addresses of Conservative Members and in the Tory manifesto, the Government's economic failure has led to a situation in which the rhetoric is wholly separate from reality. Conservative assertions about low taxation and sound public finance are now nothing more than an old aspiration that they have proved completely incapable of achieving.
      It was clear from last night's debate that the Conservatives are divided, the Government are on the defensive and, worse than that, they have no strategy. Having failed to make the economy work properly, they are now—partly through desperation but also partly through dogma—planning this autumn to dismantle the welfare state. The autumn battle to defend public services will be a battle to defend the very heart of the welfare state.
      The Chief Secretary said that there was good news on the economy, but the Finance Bill is dealing with the consequences of economic failure. If one looks at the measurements that matter—the growth of manufacturing output, gross domestic product and the change in manufacturing employment—the story is the same all round. We are way behind Japan. We are behind the USA. We are also behind Germany, Italy and France.
      The Finance Bill does not contain any measures to help industry, but the Government have insisted on measures that threaten the North sea oil industry. Already today Shell has slashed exploration, which affects jobs.
      Mr. Portillo: I am intrigued by the hon. Lady's comparison with Germany. I told her a moment ago that manufacturing output in this country had risen by 5 per cent. over the first five months of this year, while industrial production has fallen by 7 per cent. in Germany. How does she equate that with Germany being way ahead of us? Is she using a negative scale?
      Ms Harman: I am not. The problem with Ministers is that they twist the baseline in order to present something that people know is completely at variance with reality. If we hear about the pound replacing the deutschmark, or of an economic miracle in this country, people will know that the Government are refusing to face reality. Therefore, there is no chance to put the economy right and deal with the deficit, and with investment in skills, in our infrastructure and in our industry.
      The statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made shows that he is more interested in presentation and trying to cover over the cracks of the Government's division than he is in having a serious economic policy to put right the deep problems in this country. He is not prepared to recognise the situation, so it is welcome that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) described the reality.
      Last night, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that the Government were "near

      887
      bankrupt". The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) described the country as "bust". However, it is not only the Tory Back Benchers who have been describing the Government's economic failure. We have had a Conservative analysis of the economic failure of the past few years which I would like to quote to the House.
      Mr. Stephen Milligan: As the hon. Lady will not pursue the point made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, can she explain how, when she makes an incorrect statement about German and British industrial production, that is perfectly fair, but when my right hon. Friend produces the correct figures, that is just a matter of presentation?
      Ms Harman: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not produce the correct figures. If we consider the growth of manufacturing output in the G7 countries between 1979 and 1992, Japan had 50 per cent. growth; the United States had 32 per cent. growth; Germany had 23 per cent. growth; Italy had growth of 16 per cent.; France had growth of 7 per cent; and Canada had growth of 8 per cent. Would the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Milligan) care to volunteer the growth figure for the United Kingdom? I will give way to the Chief Secretary if he can tell us how we compare.
      Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to tell the House what happened to manufacturing output under the last Labour Government.
      Ms Harman: Against a figure of 50 per cent. growth in manufacturing output in Japan between 1979 and 1992, the United Kingdom had growth of barely 5 per cent. I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has intervened because I was about to quote from his analysis of the Government's economic failures. The Financial Secretary said:
      "Think back six years. The yuppie revolution was in full swing. It had a lot going for it. It encouraged young people to regard wealth creation as a benign activity. It broke class barriers. It embraced change. It exuded confidence. All of that was positive. But it was built on sand."
      How right he was. In this Finance Bill, the country is paying the price of those years of economic failure.
      The Financial Secretary went on to say that
      "the resources that were attracted, like moths to a lamp-bulb"—
      and to property development and to what the hon. Gentleman described as
      "the lure of easy money"—
      were wasted resources. He said:
      "Resources are scarce, and we cannot afford the luxury of—
      and he then described his own Government's economic policy as "waste and distortion." I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
      Mr. Dorrell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Harman: No, I will not let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
      Mr. Dorrell: Would the hon. Lady like to change her mind?
      Ms Harman: No, I would not. I am afraid that I am going to be flinty-faced on this occasion.
      888
      This Finance Bill pays the price of economic failure, unemployment and the soaring cost of unemployment. When we consider the public sector borrowing requirement and the cost of unemployment, it is clear that the figures are enormous. The cost of unemployment in London and the south-east for one year is £8 billion. That is £8 billion just for one year to finance idleness, waste and forcing people to be on the dole.
      That is why we have said all along that the reduction of unemployment should be at the heart of the Government's economic policy so that we can end the high dole bills and lift the fear of unemployment which, to this day, still hold the economy back. However, still lurking in the Government's view is the idea that the first objective is sound public finances, although the Government have failed to achieve that, and that somehow high unemployment is "a price worth paying".
      Having failed to tackle unemployment, the Government are now turning on the welfare state.
      Mr. James Paice: By how much does the hon. Lady believe that the public sector borrowing requirement could be lowered by reducing unemployment?
      Ms Harman: It is clear that the PSBR is too high. That is the price that has been paid for economic failure and for high levels of unemployment. Economic failure has been the result of failure to invest in training, skills and our infrastructure. We need to invest in those areas to set the economy to rights.
      It is no longer any good for the Conservative party to posture as the party of sound finances. The Conservatives have ripped the finances of this country to pieces through the failure of their economic policy. Having failed to tackle unemployment, the Government are now turning on the welfare state.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Harman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman cannot be trying to intervene on my point about the welfare state because clearly he has no connection with it. However, many people have.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that the growth of the social security budget is
      "a sort of cuckoo in the nest."
      He also said that
      "Prescription charges is only one of 100 different things to look at."
      We have heard of a secret letter from the Secretary of State for Social Security referring to cutting and taxing invalidity benefit. He recognised in that letter that that would cause an outrage. The Government are turning on single mothers, complaining that they are on benefits and a drain on public finances. However, the Government deny them the child care and job opportunities that would enable them to work and be independent and able to support themselves and their children. That is what they want to do.
      The Government have broken their promises. The Prime Minister said:
      "We have no plans and no need to extend the scope of VAT."
      But that is exactly what the Government have done. The Government have said:
      "We are the only party that understands the need for lower taxation",

      889
      but in this Finance Bill they have raised taxation. The Prime Minister has also said:
      "I have no plans to raise … the level of national insurance contributions."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
      But that is exactly what he has done.
      The Finance Bill raises taxes £17·5 billion over the next two years. It freezes personal allowances and puts 1 p on national insurance contributions and it affects VAT. Even now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is warning that further tax increases are in the offing.
      Tory Members cannot justify those tax increases on the grounds that they are the only way to raise public money. During this Finance Bill, we proposed 14 separate measures that would raise money, deal with tax abuses and plug tax loopholes. Not only did the Government reject them all—they would not even allow them to be debated.
      The Tories would rather freeze personal allowances than abolish tax relief for private medical insurance. They want to subsidise people using private medical insurance and give them tax relief while freezing everyone else's personal allowances. The Government would rather put 1p on national insurance than tax the share options given to top executives. That is the Government's sense of priorities. In addition, of course, the Government would rather put VAT on gas and electricity than make the gas and electricity companies pay their fair share of corporation tax.
      Treasury Ministers will no doubt claim that this Budget—this Finance Bill—has been a success. But it has cost the Government a Chancellor. It has cost the Government 400 Tory county councillors. It cost them the Newbury by-election and it will cost them the by-election in Christchurch.
      How can the Government call it a success to increase taxes for the low paid and cause dismay among the elderly? The Chancellor is setting the scene for cuts in the welfare state and tax increases in the autumn Budget. But the country wants to see an economic policy that begins the task of putting our industry and economy back on their feet.
      The Chancellor and the Chief Secretary, possibly over a bottle of champagne, might congratulate themselves on getting the Finance Bill through Parliament, but for the people of this country fear of this Bill will be followed by dread of the bills that they cannot pay. Parliamentary proceedings on the Bill may be drawing to a close, but the political fallout has only just begun.
      7.18 pm
      Mr. John Watts: We have just heard the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) make some wild assertions. In particular, she mentioned the subject of tax relief for private medical insurance. She will remember that such tax relief is available only to those over the age of 60. When the proposal came before the House in an earlier Finance Bill, I did not vote in favour of it because I prefer not to increase the tax breaks that are available as a reduction of income tax. It will not be lost on the voters of Christchurch, 30 per cent. of whom are over the age of 60, that the hon. Lady is advocating, on behalf of the Labour party, that that tax concesson should be withdrawn.
      890
      I should like to consider three matters contained in the Bill which, as you reminded my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the subject of the debate.
      I always look back on Finance Bills with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment. On Second Reading, I referred to the changes in the regime for petroleum revenue tax, and urged my right hon. and hon. Friends to improve the transitional relief offered. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary brought forward some further limited measures of transitional relief which the industry welcome, particularly the smaller companies towards which they are targeted. My hon. Friend knows, however, that I believe that those transitional measures do not go far enough.
      The amendments which I tabled in Committee and which, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) and others, I sought to table on Report, could not be debated on either occasion for technical reasons.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he had a meeting last Thursday with the Financial Secretary? Will he further confirm that he told the oil companies' representatives that same evening that a deal had been stitched up and that the Government were going to accept his amendments Nos. 40 and 41?
      Mr. Watts: No, I cannot confirm that. I can confirm that there was a meeting between my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, representatives from a number of oil companies, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking and myself. At the conclusion of that meeting I certainly did not suggest to any representatives of the oil industry that any deal had been stitched up.
      Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why I was telephoned on Friday morning, by a representative of an oil company who attended that meeting, and was asked, "Please will you make sure that no Labour Back Benchers sign the motion because, if they do, it will screw up the deal"?
      Mr. Watts: I would have been very happy if I had been able to conclude a deal with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, but that is not what happened. There may be some confusion in the mind of the person who spoke to the hon. Gentleman. At the conclusion of our meeting, we explained the way in which the amendments had been framed and why there were two separate sets of amendments.
      We considered that one set of amendments would be technically in order for selection but would not produce the desired solution. The other set of amendments would have achieved our objective of a three-year relief period, but we understood that if the amendments were tabled by Back Benchers they could not be selected for technical reasons. They would be in order only if they were tabled by the Government.
      Our amendments were tabled on Thursday, which is normally the last day for tabling amendments to be considered on Report. It was our outside hope that, if my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury were convinced of the force of our argument, they could be

      891
      persuaded to adopt our second set of amendments as Government amendments and provide a vehicle for them. It was not my intention, or that of any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to convey to the representatives of the oil industry that any such deal had been struck. Indeed, as late as last evening, we discussed the matter further with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had just returned from Brussels and we were grateful to him for making time to discuss the matter with us at such short notice. Sadly, the vehicle that we hoped to provide was not one that my right hon. and hon. Friends chose to ride in.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a very important point, especially as Shell has announced that it is going to cut back on its drilling because of the changes that the Government intend to introduce.
      Mr. Duncan: That is not what it said.
      Mr. Darling: It is what it said.
      The hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) has mentioned that he had a private conversation with the Chancellor. Will he tell us whether the Government now accept that far more generous transitional relief must be offered to stop an even greater decline in exploration than that anticipated? That will have disastrous long-term consequences for the country's balance of payments.
      Mr. Watts: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will answer for himself. It is not my understanding that my right hon. and hon. Friends are yet persuaded that there is a need to go further than the measures introduced in Committee.
      The purpose of the amendments that I tabled, in Committee and on Report, was to obtain relief, in a tax neutral way, over a three-year transitional period. That would have been financed by restricting the reduction of PRT to 55 per cent. for that period rather than going immediately to the 50 per cent. rate mentioned in the Bill.
      I am persuaded by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary's argument that the 50 per cent. rate of PRT will have the effect of stimulating further investment in existing mature fields, and that that will be beneficial to the future development of the North sea. I am not persuaded, however, that we will see such new investment in the near future. Any substantial investment will take two or three years to be productive. I believe that in that intervening period, exploration and appraisal activity will be subject to a marked decline before any major new investments come on stream.
      Our proposals have been put in a number of different guises, but our intention has always been to smooth that transition. We want to give those parts of the industry that have been hardest hit by the tax changes more time to adapt. That would enable a high level of activity in the North sea to be maintained in the intervening period, and ensure smoother progress for our North sea oil industry.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what happened at last week's meeting because I was given the same information as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)? It may be a question of who is misleading whom. Were the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends misleading the representatives of the oil
      892
      companies with unwarranted expectations of success, or were he and his hon. Friends being misled by Ministers promising concessions that did not materialise?
      It is to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman's amendments were not tabled on an all-party basis. If they had been, the issue could have been put to the test yesterday. Presumably, all-party amendments stand a better chance of selection than those tabled by Conservative Back Benchers.
      Mr. Watts: I am clear in my own mind that neither I nor any of my right hon. or hon. Friends was misled by Ministers. It was not our intention to mislead any representative of the oil industry. I have tried to explain how I think some confusion may have arisen. I certainly did not give any indication to anyone in the industry with whom I was in contact that I believed that a deal had been done. I was certainly trying my hardest to bring about a solution, but we have failed. That is why I referred in my opening remarks to looking back on the Bill with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment. That failure is one of the disappointments.
      Even at this late stage, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to look again at what has happened in the North sea. Perhaps they will be proved to be right and that the anticipated dramatic reduction in activity will not occur or, at least, will not be sustained—activity in the North sea has already markedly declined.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) referred to the announcement by Shell UK Exploration and Production yesterday that it was reducing its manning levels by 30 per cent. I understand that there have been some denials about whether that was directly related to the change in the tax regime, but there is no doubt that it intends to reduce its exploration activity.
      Mr. Duncan: Do not the statements that Shell UK Exploration and Production has made to the press make it explicit that its decisions were made a long time ago and that its decision to reduce its activity has nothing whatever to do with the change in the PRT regime announced in the Budget?
      Mr. Watts: That may be what the company maintains, but it is reducing its activity and, not surprisingly, some people will link the changes in the tax regime with that fact.
      Mr. Dorrell: This is an important point. Opposition Members were shouting "No" when my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) intervened. My hon. Friend is right. The statement issued by Shell UK Exploration and Production on 12 July says:
      "The cost cuts in the exploration division of Shell ExPro are not due to the proposed budget changes in PRT."
      Nothing can be more explicit than that.
      Mr. Peter Mandelson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Financial Secretary has unwittingly—no doubt not intentionally—misled the House by his intervention. The memorandum written by a responsible person at Shell says clearly:
      "Doubtless you are aware … some very significant changes in petroleum revenue tax regulations will be implemented this year by the Government. The main effect that this will have on exploration is that our net costs will go up by a factor of four. In these circumstances, our exploration programme will have to be reassessed carefully."

      893
      That is at variance with what the Financial Secretary said.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be an important point, but it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. It should be raised by means of an intervention if the hon. Gentleman is able to have the Floor.
      Mr. Watts: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) asked whether orderly amendments could have been tabled on an all-party basis. To achieve a tax-neutral package of transitions, we would have needed to propose that the rate of PRT be maintained at more than 50 per cent. We wanted the transition to be a three-year period, which is longer than that provided for in the Bill. However, any such amendments tabled by mere Back Benchers would have been ruled out of order. I understand that the orderly amendment that we tabled was not selected because it was considered that the matter had been adequately debated both in Committee of the whole House and in Committee upstairs.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: In attempting to explain the position, the hon. Gentleman is simply causing further confusion. Why did he and his right hon. Friends table an amendment which they knew in advance was out of order, and tell the oil companies that they knew it was out of order, if they had not believed that something would happen to it? Surely that was the worst thing to do because it was kidding the industry along.
      Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear my explanation. Two sets of amendments appear on the amendment paper today. The first deals with an enhancement of the 18-month transition period and could have been selected had it not been deemed that the matter had been adequately debated. We knew that the second set of amendments was not in order. It was tabled by Back Benchers and set out what we considered to be the proper solution to the problem. The Government could have adopted it as a suitable vehicle had they been persuaded of our argument but, sadly, that was not the case.
      Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Watts: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time because I said that I would refer to three matters.
      Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I was the first hon. Member to raise the question of Shell. I have seen the text of the memorandum to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) referred. It says that the changed tax regime had made exploration four times more expensive. Shell has subsequently denied it, but companies do that sort of thing.
      Our difficulty is that many Tory Back Benchers, including the hon. Gentleman, have unwittingly been sold a pup by the Government. Exploration and appraisal will suffer, and the oil companies may do better next time if they remember not to bother dealing with Tory Back-Bench Members or consultants, because that is throwing good money after bad.
      Mr. Watts: Nobody has thrown money at me. I am not a consultant but I took an interest in the issue because it seemed to be a valid argument to pursue. I have financial interest neither in an oil company nor in a business representing an oil company. If I had such an interest, I
      894
      would have declared it at the beginning of my speech. My understanding of the Shell memorandum is exactly as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) just stated. As he said, the company has now put a different gloss on the matter.
      I was about to conclude my remarks on PRT by saying that I am still convinced that a substantial and damaging reduction in activity in the North sea could have been prevented had a three-year transition been provided. I hope that, if those of us who take that view are proved right and the Financial Secretary's more optimistic assumptions of what will happen in the next few months are proved wrong, even though it is too late Ministers will be prepared to reconsider the matter when preparing the November Budget and the next Finance Bill.
      Lest it should be thought that I speak merely to pour condemnation on my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, let me say that he also gave me pleasure in Committee because, for five or six years, I have been arguing for a more favourable tax treatment of unit trusts selling into other European countries. The gist of the argument is that if unit trust companies could pay dividends gross to residents of other European countries, their export performance would be much better. Evidence suggests that that is so. Ten years ago, Luxembourg had virtually no such funds under management. It now manages £86 billion worth of funds and has outstripped the funds under British management.
      I was therefore pleased when, in responding to the debate in Committee, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that suitable measures would be proposed in the November Budget and incorporated in the next Finance Bill following consultation with the industry in the intervening period. That was welcome news, not just for the industry but for the financial services industry in this country. To avoid doubt, may I confirm that I am not a consultant for the unit trust industry, although it kindly sent me a crate—12 bottles—of wine earlier this year. We excel in the financial services industry and could increase our earnings on exports to the European Community. The Bill's measures will be greatly welcomed.
      The third and final measure to which I wish to refer is the abolition of the business expansion scheme. It was probably right for the Government to propose that the existing scheme should be brought to an end. However, faced with the loss of my legislative programme for the Finance Bill now that my proposals on unit trusts have been taken up, and needing to look for another cause, that new cause may be "Son of BES".
      I am convinced that we need to provide a means of encouraging equity investment, particularly in small manufacturing companies and other small companies. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury will consider how that might be done. If they do not make their own proposals, I may argue the case for the next five or six years until, in the fullness of time, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary or his successor—I expect that my hon. Friend will be in a more exulted position by that time—concedes that it is a good argument and introduces his own measures.
      Overall, this is a good Bill, although the measures relating to PRT are unattractive. It presents a balanced approach to improving the state of the national finances, and it is a good foundation on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor can build as he prepares his Budget for presentation in November.
      7.39 pm
      Mr. Robert AinsworthThe Chief Secretary said at least one thing with which I agree: that on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading, the main issues have remained the same. Those issues are the reneging on election promises, the failure to address the underlying problems in our economy, and the nature and effect of the huge tax increases that have been proposed and are to be introduced in the measure.
      I think that all hon. Members will recall the clear commitments that were given before the general election. They were that there would be no extension of VAT, no increase in national insurance contributions and—a commitment given in the clearest of terms—tax decreases year on year. The excuse with which we have been repeatedly presented is that the circumstances that we now face have changed and were totally unforeseen when those honest commitments were given to the electorate before the general election.
      However, the Chief Secretary said tonight that there was a lot of good news in the economy. He talked about the success in the last three quarters, the fact that unemployment was down, and forecasts that showed that we would have the highest growth of the nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. What on earth should we believe? If those success stories are correct, what are the unforeseen events that have happened since the Government gave those clear pre-general election commitments that there would be no tax increases?
      Last night, I heard Conservative Members say that one can, in certain circumstances, renege on election pledges, but there has to be some honesty of intent. If the Government have honesty of intent, why are they boasting about the wonderful news in the economy? If there is wonderful news in the economy, where was the honesty of intent in those pre-general election promises? The Government cannot square the circle. One or the other of their claims is not true. The nation is getting sick of the Government's slick presentation and wants them to give the facts about the problems that face the country.
      A couple of years ago, when we were enjoying a huge budget surplus, the Government took the opportunity to decrease taxes, and they gave those decreases to the better-off in society. The biggest single adjustment they made was the abolition of all tax grades above 40 per cent. That act alone gave more than £2 billion to those who are better off.
      Now that we are picking up the cost of those foolish measures and the inability to sort out the long-term problems in our economy, we have a huge £50 billion deficit in public finances. There are two major proposals designed to deal with that deficit. The first is to increase national insurance contributions. That policy was deliberately chosen rather than an increase in income tax, because it hits those on average and below-average earnings, while protecting those in the highest income tax bracket. The second and far and away the worst proposal in the Budget is the appalling proposal to impose VAT on fuel.
      There has been much disquiet about the election promises and the proposals. In the past few weeks, that concern has centred on the issue of VAT increases. Almost all the representations which I and, I think, others have
      896
      received have been on the VAT issue. Almost all the representations that I have received have been from pensioners.
      I do not believe that pensioners are the only people to have realised that they will be affected by the VAT proposals in the Budget; I do not believe that they are better informed than the rest of the population. The pensioners' representations have been made for one simple reason: fear. There is fear among ordinary pensioners living on, and just above, income support levels about how they will pay the increased fuel bills and survive.
      We are told that the policy is not designed merely to raise revenue, but involves the environment. Does not the environment of those pensioners count? Is it not their world? Is their environment of no concern to those people who say that the measure is an environmental policy?
      A recent survey conducted by Age Concern showed that already—without the implementation of the Budget proposals—30,000 to 40,000 more people die in this country in winter than in summer. It also discovered that 18 per cent. of pensioners had no insulation on their hot water tanks, 26 per cent. had no loft insulation, and 64 per cent. had no double-glazing on their windows.
      If anyone—whether members of the Conservative party or supporters of Friends of the Earth—wants to support the measure on the grounds that it is a green policy, they should address the problems relating to pensioners. We are talking not about a green measure, but about a hypothermia enhancement measure—that is the effect that it will have on pensioners. That is the reason the pensioners have made representations, and the reason for their fear.
      The people who have made representations to me fall into two categories. First, there are those who are already on income support, who are dependent on means-tested benefits and who do not believe that they will receive full compensation from the Government for the costs imposed on them by the proposals. They have no reason to believe that they will receive adequate compensation when they look at the Government's track record of deliberately and repeatedly reneging on their commitments.
      The second category of people are those living just above income support levels, who receive no state benefits because they have struggled all their lives to make some small extra provision by paying into an occupational pension scheme or something similar. They now find that their prudence and the struggle that they have maintained throughout their lives by paying taxes and national insurance contributions has resulted in their being pushed into the poverty trap. The proposals will bring them no benefits.
      The Chief Secretary said that he hoped that he had established a rhythm of good decision making. What sort of rhythm of decision making will the pensioners have to take up when they try to balance their water bills, council tax bills, rent bills and fuel bills? What sort of rhythm of good decision making does the Cheif Secretary suggest that the pensioners should adopt?
      Undoubtedly, the Government are proposing deliberately and cynically to make the poorest people—the most vulnerable in the country—pay for their own mishandling of the economy over not only the past three or four years but the past 14 years.
      The Conservative Government told the nation that they were the Government of prudent economic management. However, they have got themselves into such a mess that

      897
      we are now imposing these appalling measures on pensioners. It is disgraceful. I hope that the Government are never forgiven for deliberately reneging on their election pledges. I shall do everything in my power to ensure that they are not forgiven.
      7.50 pm
      Mr. Alan Duncan: It is almost four months since the Budget statement was read to the House. Since then, we have studied it in great detail, on the Floor of the House and in Committee.
      As we reflect on our deliberations, it is important to recall the mood that prevailed when the Budget was read. Spending was admittedly high, and we knew that that matter had to be addressed. There was a strong feeling that any severe attack on public spending could jeopardise what was seen to be a fragile recovery. My hon. Friends were wary of doing anything too severe so as not to put into reverse the small signs of progress that could already be observed as the economy crept out of recession.
      On Budget day, I said that the Budget could have been tougher on the public sector borrowing requirement—I still hold that view—because I felt that the most attested economic phenomenon is probably the business cycle. However fragile we might think the recovery is, the business cycle has a momentum of its own which we expect to perform.
      When I study research papers on economic indicators in the Library, I am always struck by how steeply the graph is pointing upwards to reflect the increasing size of the public sector borrowing requirement. That must determine our decision on whether the Finance Bill tackles what needs to be tackled.
      A lot has happened since Budget day. Of course, we now have a new Chancellor. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who drafted the Budget. He is an economic radical. The Budget definitely had his personal stamp on it. Setting aside all the political problems that have beset him since he spoke in the House on 16 March, he can feel justly proud of the way in which the Budget is shaped, and the economic prosperity that it will deliver in due course.
      We must put the Budget in the context that, because the United Kingdom was the first country to go into recession we are showing that we are the first to come out of it. That puts us in a unique position to take advantage of the improved competitiveness in the British economy as we emerge from recession while our partners are still suffering.
      Only a cursory look at Germany and France shows that, in contrast to our economic fortunes, they are facing severe difficulties. A visit to Germany shows that, in Stuttgart, 25,000 people have been laid off at the Mercedes-Benz factory, the production of Porsche cars has gone down by about 80 per cent., and the machine tool industry is all but in a state of collapse.
      The German economy, which depends heavily on the motor industry, is facing severe difficulties. Effectively, having bought a bankrupt country, the Germans must now support the debt that they took on to do so. Having invested so much pride—and rightly so—in sustaining the value of their currency, they face a severe conflict between deciding how to protect the parity of the deutschmark and reducing interest rates to stimulate economic activity. I do not envy them that problem. Indeed, we had the same
      898
      problem. None the less, it will shape the economic behaviour of our European partners over the next few years.
      The problem in France is not quite so severe—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his tour of Europe, I must remind him that we are debating the Third Reading of the Bill. Although it is in order to take some general economic policy as background, it must not turn into a debate on policy that is unrelated to the Third Reading of the Bill.
      Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will abide by it. I was merely setting the Budget in context. The judgments contained in the Bill can be justified. In making such judgments, we must increasingly examine our European competitors to assess whether the judgments made in the House can be supported.
      In reverting to the details of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames will be vindicated in the details that he injected in the measures by having a delayed clawback in the structure of the public sector borrowing requirement for the future. To retrieve £6·5 billion in 1994–95 and £10·5 billion in 1995–96, it is necessary to build economic confidence, but at the same time not severely to attack a fragile recovery.
      We are in a good position as a result of the Bill. Inflation is now below the EC average, and our interest rate is the lowest in the EC. At 6 per cent., it is the lowest rate since December 1977, and the fifth reduction since we left the exchange rate mechanism. As a result of the Bill, unemployment has shown an unexpected improvement, costs and earnings are increasingly contained, car registrations are up, and industrial production and exports are up.
      Dr. John Reid: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how unemployment has fallen as a result of the Bill when it has not yet been enacted?
      Mr. Duncan: People are well aware of what the Budget contains, because the Bill has been discussed in detail in the House and in Committee. Indeed, giving the Bill Royal Assent merely confirms that the House wishes to see it enacted.
      The Finance Bill sets the foundation for sustainable growth. We still have certain structural problems and a certain bias to housing, which has been addressed by ensuring that mortgage interest relief at source is at the lowest rate. There are many things that we will have to discuss in the November Budget.
      The Finance Bill has brought us back to reality. It will ensure that we entertain realistic expectations of what the economy can deliver. It does not suggest that there is any good sense in making a dash for growth. Rather, we will see growth of 1 or perhaps 2 per cent., plus 1 per cent. and then another 1 per cent. The Bill will ensure that we have the sustainable prosperity for which we must aim.
      During the passage of the Bill, we have listened in vain for any constructive alternative from Labour Members. The speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was completely bereft of any alternative proposal for or commitment to what she thinks the upper

      899
      rate of tax should be. She did not say why the Labour party dropped its election policy of imposing an investment income surcharge on savers.
      If she was still here, I would ask the hon. Lady whether she agrees with the shadow Chancellor that to raise income tax would be a mistake, and would probably take demand out of the economy. How would she fulfil her party's pledge to increase Government spending without raising taxes? What does she think is the correct level for the public sector borrowing requirement? We missed all that from Labour Members.
      I commend the Bill to the House for the Third Reading that it so properly deserves.
      8 pm
      Mr. Beith: I will not attempt to answer many of the questions that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) put to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), because I would be ruled out of order. We are supposed to be discussing what is in the Finance Bill.
      The Chief Secretary sketched in the economic background, which it was reasonable for him to do, and I do not quarrel with the main elements he quoted as favourable and positive in the current economic climate, although he was inclined to leave out some unfavourable elements.
      For example, the construction industry is still not showing the signs of recovery that are vital in that crucial sector of the economy. The unemployment news cannot give the Government ease and comfort. We have very high levels of unemployment, and most commentators expect them to persist, even if there are some offsetting job improvements through gains achieved by British exporters in world markets.
      Hon. Members point out that many countries are going deeper into recession as we are coming out of it. They talk about that as good news, whereas it is really bad news for exporters, who must sell into markets which are in recession. Other countries being in recession acts as an inhibition on our recovery. We should not be pleased about their plight. No more should we be pleased about the continued high import penetration of our domestic economy, which remains a worry for industry.
      I was tempted to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) to say that he was pouring petrol over the Government but not putting a match to it. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) last night poured domestic fuel over the Government and put a match to it by pointing out—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether political self-immolation was a necessary part of that—that the Christchurch by-election, and, by implication, any other by-elections that may occur in the near future, is likely to go against the Conservatives because of the provisions in this measure.
      The Bill includes the hated and feared VAT on domestic fuel, imposed without adequate compensation or channelling of revenues into measures that will help people to pay for it by making their homes more energy-efficient. That alone is sufficient reason to oppose the Bill.
      The Budget, of which the Bill is a part, contains in effect an income tax increase, even though it is not to be found in the Bill in that form. The 1 p increase in national
      900
      insurance contributions represents an income tax increase for the low-paid, because all higher levels of income are not subject to the 1p charge. Perks, which are subject to income tax but not to national insurance contributions, escape. In other words, it is a back-door income tax increase, and we were not able to discuss it at earlier stages of the Bill because it is being done through the national insurance system.
      The Bill imposes substantial additional burdens on charities, through VAT and changes in advance corporation tax, both of which will hit them hard. Hon. Members are still receiving extensive representations on the issue from charities.
      The Bill's petroleum revenue tax regime is costing thousands of jobs. That cannot be denied, because, whatever is happening at Shell, thousands of jobs will be lost in the oil industry and in many others which that industry supports and from which it buys. I was struck by a revised Shell statement, quoted in the Financial Times today, which bears the hallmark of some careful drafting. A company spokesman is reported as having said:
      "The PRT changes have underlined, and given focus to, what we were already looking at in the North Sea".
      Those were carefully crafted words. They put into sharp relief the fact that one of the only two companies which welcomed the new PRT regime is shedding a vast number of jobs. The other company is also shedding many jobs.
      Mr. Dorrell: For the sake of completeness, the right hon. Gentleman will want the House to know that the sentence which he quoted finishes with the words:
      "without further affecting the drilling programme."
      Mr. Beith: Even so, it significantly affects the exploration programme, which is the complaint that everybody is making about the new PRT regime. Many companies, particularly those committed on the exploration side, are devastated by the new regime.
      It is a bitter blow that, after all the pleas that they received, including many from Conservative Members, the Government have still not gone nearly far enough, even in transitional provisions which would have helped the industry with the difficulties that it is facing. The Government cannot be oblivious to the severe job impact that the regime is having, not just in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom.
      I urge the Government to realise that oil exploration workers live in all parts of Britain. One need only go to Newcastle airport on a Friday night or to Leeds station or Teesside airport to see people going home to all parts of the United Kingdom, particularly to areas down the east coast, from areas of oil activity. That is not to mention the many companies supplying the oil industry.
      The Bill will unfairly tax people who are forced to move because of their work. In particular, it will tax van drivers unfairly, and what a group of people to pick on. Instead of imposing a scale of charges in a field of activity that increasingly has been taxed by the Revenue, when the Revenue caught up with it, the Government have imposed such a high scale charge that, for example, people on modest incomes who drive vans and take them home so that their tools will be safer overnight, rather than leaving the van on site, will be subject to an unfairly high tax charge.
      There are serious faults in the Bill—right from large aspects to the micro-elements of its provisions. In many respects, it takes'a wrong attitude to the tax system. That

      901
      attitude is not based on fairness. The Government are too fond of direct taxes, they are too fond of national insurance contributions as a means of raising the equivalent amounts by way of income tax, and they are too hostile to rises in standard and higher rates of income tax, which would be a fairer means of increasing taxation, if it is necessary to do that.
      Had the Government wished to introduce provisions to achieve an extremely large increase in taxation over, say, the next two years—the Bill does precisely that—they should have addressed fairer means of achieving that objective. They would have been subject to much less criticism from the Opposition had they done so. They would still have been criticised for creating a situation in which such tax increases were necessary, but they would at least have placed those increases on the population on a fairer basis.
      The Budget and the Finance Bill do not square the circle. There will remain a large public sector borrowing requirement. The Government must have regard to the PSBR and seek to reduce it, but I warn them not to be mesmerised by it. To do so could lead them into some extremely mistaken decisions. As well as a substantial budget deficit, there is in Britain a substantial investment deficit. There has been a considerable failure to invest in areas of crucial importance to the economy.
      Historically, we have not in recent years had a high PSBR. We do not have a high level of existing national debt. We have a large and worrying PSBR which could have marked consequences, so we cannot ignore it, but if we were to rein back severely on investment as opposed to taking action on current expenditure, we could be adding to, rather than ending, the damage. We would be bringing about a situation in which the long-term problems of the British economy that have helped to get us into the present mess would persist into the future, and perhaps even get worse. So the Government must draw a distinction between current and investment expenditure in their attempts to deal with the PSBR. They must not be so mesmerised by the PSBR that investment and capital expenditure are severely damaged into the future.
      The Chief Secretary set the Bill in the context of what he described as "steady and purposeful progress", and "good decision making". His use of such phrases surprised me, because we have been on a roller coaster. We have gone from the most ridiculous heights of boom into the most desperate depths of depression. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton knows that, because he has delivered a critique of Thatcherite economics, of which we shall hear more on an appropriate occasion.
      Yet the Chief Secretary—the man who gave us the poll tax—talks about the considerable costs and other elements of Government that will have to be reined in. He has been an expensive man for the Government to have around—he gave us the poll tax and all its costly consequences—so he will find it hard to convince some of us that his credentials are sound when it comes to making sensible cuts in public expenditure.
      The Chief Secretary may talk about good decision making, but I cannot recall another Finance Bill during my 20 years in the House when the Chancellor who delivered the Budget has been sacked before the Bill had completed its legislative course. Not only has he been sacked, but he comes before us in the midst of our considering the Bill and says that there has been
      "too much short-termism, too much reacting to events".
      902
      He added:
      "We give the impression of being in office but not in power. Far too many important decisions are made for 36 hours' publicity."
      When we read the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman's words ring in our ears. He went on:
      "I believe that in politics one should decide what is right and then decide the presentation, not the other way round. Unless this approach is changed, the Government will not survive, and will not deserve to survive."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 283.]
      We saw an instance of that last night, when, in a vote on a crucial part of the Bill, the Government had a majority of only eight. Their majority is shrinking, and it will shrink more after the Christchurch by-election: they will be increasingly unable to get Bills such as this through the House, and increasingly required to respond to the House's demands. Moreover, that will apply at a time when—as the Government themselves point out—difficult decisions must be made.
      The Government cannot simply go for what is popular; I accept that. They must present the House with tough packages, which—while dealing with the current deficit, and the urgent needs of the economy—are at the same time seen to be fair. That, in my view, is where the Bill fails. It is seen not as a fair Finance Bill, but as an unfair way of inflicting the price of the Government's mistakes on the people.
      Well may it be called a Bill: it is the bill that the people must pay for those mistakes. It is the sort of bill that arrives in a brown envelope through our constituents' letter boxes. It does not provide for constructive investment in the future, or for the easily definable good things that the country needs; it is the bill for the mistakes that the present Government have made. I well understand why so many people resent having to pay it, and resent the unfair distribution that it represents.
      8.11 pm
      Dr. Liam Fox: One of the aspects of the way in which the House deals with legislation is the fact that, by the time we discuss the Finance Bill, some time has elapsed since the Budget statement: it seems a considerable time to those of us who served on the Standing Committee.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, however, it is clear that recovery is now under way. We are seeing increased manufacturing output and more housing starts—an increase of 18,000 this year—lower inflation and more employment. At the time of the Budget statement, we wondered whether the recovery was sustainable; now we know that it is.
      In a lucid intervention, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) asked how the Budget could be taking effect when its provisions had not yet been passed. As the Chancellor said at the time, the important feature of the Budget was that any tax increases would come later so as not to choke off the recovery at its outset. His important statement that there would be no tax rises this year has made it possible for the recovery to take root as strongly as it has.
      Dr. Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Fox: Many others wish to speak, but, as it is the hon. Gentleman, I will.
      Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Does his logic suggest that, when the tax increases are introduced next year, the recovery will be undermined?
      Dr. Fox: Given his knowledge of economics, the hon. Gentleman should understand that, by that time, the recovery will be so well under way that the greatest threat will be not a lack of consumer confidence, but the need for sound public finances. The Government's overwhelming duty will be to tackle that task. In this context as in others, the Government will ultimately be judged on whether what we leave behind is better than what we inherited. That means not only improving living standards and lowering inflation and unemployment, but reducing public debt. That is the point that I made to the hon. Gentleman earlier.
      Some hon. Members seem to believe that the Government will make short-term decisions. Several have already mentioned the Christchurch by-election. I trust that my ministerial colleagues will make no decisions that might be influenced in any way by the thought of a forthcoming by-election, but will do what the Conservative party was put in office to do—make the correct decisions, however unpopular they may be in the short term.
      One fundamental principle must guide us. As we go for growth—as we undoubtedly will—the value of money should not be up for grabs in our economic policy. That means that we must reduce spending.
      I praise the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the spending review it is surely right to consider welfare spending as part of overall spending. The welfare state was originally intended to be a genuine partnership between Government and those who needed help, rather than a perpetual Santa's grotto that would deliver money to anyone who happened to pass through it. That surely must still be the right approach.
      It would also be wrong to suggest that the current recovery is based solely on the short-term measures that we have announced since the Budget. Surely that recovery is also due to the supply side reforms of the 1980s, not least the reform of the labour and trade union movements. The flexibility that we now enjoy will lead to faster falls in unemployment than we could otherwise have expected—and those supply side changes would have been possible only under a succession of Conservative Governments. We must resist the temptation to rewrite history as having begun in 1989 or 1992; the Government's economic policy goes back to 1979.
      The lesson of the policy of the late 1980s is that growth is sustainable only if inflation is kept low. It gives Conservative Members no great pleasure to admit the mistakes of the monetary policy of the late 1980s—a policy that advocated over-loosening of a money supply that the Opposition urged us to loosen even further. At least their economic policy is consistent in one respect: they demand interest rates that are perpetually 1 per cent. lower than the Government want at any given time, whether the requirement is for a tightening or a loosening of the money supply.
      We must not return to the house price inflation of the 1980s. We must be willing to tax consumption, and we must not be willing to tax earnings. That surely is one of the fundamental differences between Government and Opposition.
      904
      I am disappointed to note that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) is not present. She talked of 14 years of Conservative economic mismanagement; yet unemployment was reduced from 3·2 million in 1986 to 1·5 million in 1990, despite the arrival of 1 million more people on the jobs market. That is a record that we would gladly repeat. We repaid £14 billion of national debt in a year—the very national debt that the hon. Lady was keen to see repaid as soon as possible. But our monetary policy was too loose.
      It is sad that, in a debate that lacks the fevered atmosphere of a more packed Chamber, the hon. Member for Peckham could not bring herself to accept the basic truth. She could not even accept that, while the German economy is now in recession, the British economy is growing. It is indeed sad when that level of maturity cannot be achieved on the Opposition Front Bench.
      Even worse, the hon. Lady revealed that—as all of us who served on the Standing Committee already know—she does not know the numbers. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) asked by how much the public sector borrowing requirement would be reduced if unemployment fell, she was—as ever—unable to give a figure. It is a remarkable feat for a shadow Chief Secretary to make a speech in a finance debate without mentioning any figures. I suppose that Opposition Members must be very careful when the shadow Cabinet elections are approaching, even if three women have to be elected.
      Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Fox: No, I will not.
      I was also disappointed to hear the accusation that the Government were not willing to tolerate debate on the Opposition's amendments to the Bill. The simple truth is that, if those on the Opposition Front Bench had been remotely competent in drafting the amendments, the Chair would not have ruled them out of order.
      Our prosperity ultimately depends on sound public finances, honest money, individual and corporate incentive, and export-led growth in an increasingly deregulated market. I believe that this Finance Bill sets us well on the road, and I commend it to the House.
      8.19 pm
      Mr. Alan Milburn: This Finance Bill is very long; if my memory serves me aright, it runs to 312 pages. As I recall, the Chancellor's speech also set records for its length—it certainly felt like that sitting on these Benches listening to it. But long speeches and long Finance Bills do not add up to much, certainly not to a strategy for economic recovery. Indeed, any prospect of a sustained recovery will be undone by the legacy of 14 years of gross economic mismanagement and the inadequacies of this Finance Bill. The deep-seated problems of the United Kingdom's economy, which hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, are left untouched by the Bill and, arguably, are compounded by it.
      Take the long-promised consumer-led recovery about which we have heard so much this evening, and from the Government Front Bench over the last year or so. Even if it is accepted that a personal consumption boom rather than an investment-led recovery is necessary to get the

      905
      British economy back on its feet, the personal sector debt remains too high and confidence remains too low to promote a new consumer boom.
      The threat of unemployment continues to deter too many individuals from taking major investment decisions. Since the general election, 8,000 people in Darlington have experienced unemployment. Unemployment remains the single biggest social and economic problem faced by this country. It is a sure sign of the Government's priorities that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his first Mansion House speech, did not even utter the word "unemployment". He does not recognise the problem; he has no solution for it; and I am afraid that the Finance Bill is a direct reflection of that failure.
      The Finance Bill threatens to make matters worse by imposing higher tax rises on people on low and middle incomes. Those people are still struggling with the effects of falling property prices; they are still suffering from having mortgage debts around their necks; and they still face the threat of redundancy. Any consumer upturn will be snuffed out by this approach.
      The real failure of the Finance Bill—I believe that this is recognised, in all honesty, by hon. Members on both sides of the House—is that it turns its back on measures to plug the investment gaps that hinder Britain's ability to compete. With Europe already heading into a deep and damaging recession, and accounting for some 60 per cent. of United Kingdom exports, the prospects for an export-led recovery are difficult in any case; in this situation, it is surely doubly incumbent on the Government to act to help Britain's competitive position.
      What has been the Government's response? The Bill introduces a special 40 per cent. capital allowance scheme, presumably because it is recognised that it will help to speed industrial investment. But the Government have ignored the pleas, not only of the Opposition but of the Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations, who have all called for the maintenance and extension of that special capital allowance scheme. Indeed, in the Red Book, the Government recognise that business investment this year will not remain stagnant, but will fall.
      Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to remind the House also that business investment in plant and machinery, which he says will fall this year, is now 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979, and that total business investment, as the recession is coming to an end, is still higher than it was at any time during the 1960s and 1970s measured as a percentage of gross domestic product.
      Mr. Milburn: If business investment has been so successful, the Minister might like to explain to the House why, even in the middle of a recession, British companies still cannot meet even weakened consumer demand, and hence the massive increase in Britain's imports bill. I notice that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when he spoke earlier, lauded Britain's export performance, but he totally failed to mention the dreadful state of our imports bill. I am afraid that, once again, the Government's priorities and, indeed, their double dealing on economic statistics have been laid bare before the House and the country.
      The parlous state to which our manufacturing base has been reduced by the Government requires more than rhetoric from the Prime Minister; it requires action, and it certainly requires more than a one-year, one-off, headline-grabbing investment incentive. British industry
      906
      now receives less financial support from the Government than its competitors in any other European country. We are even falling behind the newly industrialising countries of the Pacific rim in terms of investment, training, and research and development.
      The Finance Bill could have represented a turning point in the Government's approach. Instead, it is business as usual: it is free market, hands off, non-interventionist. The short-termism that has so characterised the last 14 years of Conservative economic policy has rarely been made more explicit. It will be the whole country that, in the medium term, will pay the price. The writing is already on the wall. The fact that the imports bill continues to boom in the middle of a recession is a sure sign that British manufacturing has been seriously weakened by the Government's performance. Whole sectors have simply been wiped out, so that even a modest recovery will precipitate a balance of payments crisis far worse than that envisaged by the former Chancellor when he delivered the Budget. The real results of the Government's economic mismanagement will be realised only when and if recovery finally arrives. It is then that their failures will be most clearly exposed.
      Quite simply, the Finance Bill does nothing to tackle the economic mess created by the Conservatives. Instead, it asks the country to foot the bill for the Government's failures. Inevitably, it will be the people on low and middle incomes who will be asked to pay the price. They have been betrayed and let down by a Government who promised the earth—recovery, tax cuts and a new boom—and delivered precisely the reverse. The Finance Bill means the biggest rise in British history.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury outlined the figures—some £17 billion to £18 billion in just two years. The Bill makes a mockery of Tory claims from the last general election, but it is at least consistent in one respect: 14 years of Tory tax policy have increased, not cut, the tax burden, and it has weighed most heavily on those least able to pay. Meanwhile, the wealthiest people.in society, representing a fraction of all taxpayers, have had the benefit of a veritable tax bonanza, paid for by the rest of us. The regressive nature of the tax rises, the imposition of value added tax on fuel, the freezing of personal allowances and, of course, the increase in national insurance contributions affect every taxpayer, but they particularly affect the low-paid.
      The Finance Bill, interestingly, also hits those on middle incomes. In a parliamentary answer dated 22 April, the Financial Secretary admitted that, as a result of the freeze on personal allowances, there would be 120,000 more higher rate taxpayers. Similarly, restricting the married couple's allowance to 20 per cent., as proposed for the next financial year, would increase the number by a further 210,000. Like the poorest people in society, people on middle incomes are being asked to dig deeper to pay for the massive tax handouts to the very rich over the past few years.
      I remind the House that top-rate tax cuts have earned the wealthiest more than £10 billion since 1988, when Lord Lawson, as he now is, introduced his tax-cutting Budget. They have done very well out of the Government, and they continue to do so. The Government's failure to tackle tax evasion and abuse earns the wealthiest people in society a pretty penny. Why should a person earning, say, £20,000 a year have to pay tax on his income, while a person who

      907
      receives a bequest of, say, £100,000 pays nothing because he can afford to pay tax advisers and thereby avoid his inheritance tax liabilities?
      The Government could have done something about that in the Finance Bill, but they refused to do so. The result is that we have a financial scandal on our hands. The nation's coffers are being plugged by increases in national insurance contributions and income tax and, of course, by the VAT extension. By contrast, the very wealthiest are getting off scot free.
      The Bill continues to give inherited wealth an enormous tax break. The very richest are subsidised while the very poorest are penalised. So much for the Prime Minister's classless society. This Finance Bill is a con. It aids the wealthiest by affording enormous tax loopholes to them. It stings the poorest and those on middling incomes with swingeing tax rises. It does nothing to promote lasting recovery because it fails to promote investment in jobs or in industry. That is why the Bill deserves to be rejected by the House.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: For the second time this afternoon I should remind the House of my interests which are declared in the Register of Members' Interests, in particular of my connection with NatWest Securities, Dewe Rogerson and the Institute of Taxation.
      We had a characteristic performance this afternoon by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). It was certainly long on charm and on what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary rightly called fragrance. On substance, however, it was short, I fear, to the point of superficiality. [Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) says from a sedentary position, that is what I always say. Yes, that is what I always say, precisely because it is always justified.
      The Labour party's economic policy consists of saying, in the most mindless fashion, that the answer to unemployment is to spend money and that everything else will follow on from that. It is far from clear that that would happen. No coherent argument has been advanced by the Opposition showing why the sudden expenditure of public money would reduce unemployment. Very much the reverse would occur.
      Even if we were to suppose that the spending of public money was the way automatically to reduce unemployment, the Opposition ought, if there were any economic rigour about their thinking or any reality at all about their plans, to tell us by how much they are prepared to increase taxation, or by how much they are prepared to see the public sector borrowing requirement increase in the short term in order to bring about the so-called reduction in unemployment over the medium or longer term that the model that they hawk about predicts. To that we are never given an answer. A so-called alternative Government who are not prepared to face the costs of their own policies deprives them automatically of the right to be taken seriously. The performance of the hon. Member for Peckham has done nothing even to begin to fill the enormous credibility gap that the Labour party has consistently opened up.
      I pay sincere tribute to the Government's determination to reduce the PSBR. A year ago, I admit, I was less
      908
      concerned about the rigour of fiscal policy. We were then part of the exchange rate mechanism. We are no longer part of it. Things have changed considerably. No country can with impunity afford for long to have a reduction in interest rates, a relaxation of monetary policy and a devaluation as well as an increase in the deficit, or a relaxation of fiscal policy. In present circumstances, therefore, it is particularly important that we should make a vigorous and, if necessary, a ruthless attempt to cut public expenditure and reduce the PSBR.
      I pay tribute to the courage of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) and the rest of the Treasury Bench in putting together this Budget which has laid the basis for increases in public revenues next year and the year after that. I thoroughly agree with the revenue-raising measures that have been selected: the increase in the taxation of company cars and the application of tax to allowances at the 20 per cent. rate, which seems to me to be right and proper. I thoroughly agree, too, as I said earlier this afternoon, with the extension of VAT to domestic fuel.
      When the combined Budget and public expenditure statement is made in November, I hope that those measures will be accompanied by a demonstrable effort on the part of the Government to cut their own spending—I hope to below the level of the control totals that were published last year for this year, next year and the year after. It is a necessary move. Therefore, I hope that it takes place.
      As for VAT, I know that the Government will not be discouraged by the fundamentally synthetic agitation of the Opposition, none of which was accompanied by an explicit commitment by the Labour party to abolish VAT on domestic fuel should the Labour party, by some mischance, be returned to power. [Interruption.] Well, we shall see, but we are used to the Labour party accusing the Government of spending too little, of taxing too much and of having too large a PSBR.
      Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: The hon. Gentleman sat with me throughout the Committee proceedings on this Bill and knows full well that European legislation will not allow this change to be revoked. Is he suggesting that the Labour party would defy European law, or is he suggesting that his own party would be in a position to do so?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has put forward an absolutely splendid excuse.
      Mr. Mandelson: That is true.
      Mr. Davies: Indeed.
      Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman should therefore sit down.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants me to end my remarks, which encourages me to feel that I may be scoring a few hits.
      I hope that the Government will go further and extend VAT to other things as well—in fact, to everything, with the sole exception of food and children's clothing, for which we have negotiated, with some difficulty, a derogation from Community rules. What I hope that the Government will not do and what they have correctly not done in the Finance Bill, which I hope we shall send on its

      909
      way this evening, is to increase direct taxes—income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. Those are the three—
      Mr. Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: No, I am not going to give way, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. On several occasions this evening the hon. Member for Peckham refused to give way to me during her speech. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am normally very generous in giving way to the Opposition. I did so earlier today when I was on my feet. There must, however, be some reciprocity. Therefore I propose not to give way but to continue with my speech.
      It seems to me to be absolutely right not to increase the rates of those three direct taxes. I hope that the Government will continue on that course when they present their next Budget at the end of this year. They are the most economically damaging taxes. Perhaps the most economically damaging of them all is capital gains tax, for it has a direct impact on risk taking in the economy. All three of them, though, have a direct impact on incentives to work, on incentives to invest, on the location of industry and on the choice of residence.
      It is tempting and popular to say that the rich should be clobbered and that we ought to introduce a new higher rate of tax of 50, 60 or 70 per cent. for higher incomes or, alternatively, that the 40 per cent. rate ought to be increased in respect of those categories of income to which it currently applies.
      But that would be very damaging. The more attractive, in political and demagogic terms, it is to increase the rate of income tax as one moves up the income scale, the more economically damaging it is to do so. We are talking about people who are relatively more and more internationally mobile—well paid lawyers and financiers, as well as the pop stars and tennis stars, who could pursue their activities equally well in Paris, New York, Geneva or any other one of a whole variety of places. It would be very foolish to drive those people away. In this context, I hope that the Government will be very careful indeed not to mess about with the residency and domicile rules. Were they to do so, many of the people to whom I have referred would not be here.
      Over the past few years, there have been great advantages—in terms of inward investment, the location of industry and the residence of people—in our acquisition, for the first time since the second world war, of the reputation of being, by international standards, a lower-tax area. Previously we had the reverse reputation. I hope that nothing will be done to damage this very considerable achievement—one of many—of the Conservative Government over the past 15 years.
      It is a pity that the Government have not taken the opportunity afforded by this Bill to iron out some of the anomalies that result from the differential taxation of certain benefits. I hope that they will do so next time round. As hon. Members know, some non-means-tested benefits, such as the old-age pension, are regarded as income—which, indeed, they are—and are subject to tax in the normal way, whereas others, such as child benefit and invalidity benefit, are not regarded as income and are not subject to tax. There can be no rhyme or reason in that. Taxing all those benefits would not in any way constitute an attack on the poor. People whose income consisted entirely of benefit would not be liable to tax. However,
      910
      there is no reason why anyone receiving benefit on top of another significant income should not have to pay tax on it. I hope that the Government will address this matter.
      The hon. Member for Peckham, among others, said much about the future of the welfare state. It is true that the welfare state does a wonderful job in the protection of many vulnerable people. It prevents a great deal of misery among families. All parties in the House are united in believing that a welfare state is necessary to a humane society. However, the present system is riddled with anomalies and perversities of all kinds and requires thorough examination. For example, it is absurd that teenagers receive housing benefit at public expense although they come from loving families that want them back. There have been some very tragic cases in my constituency. Why should children be paid to stay in some hostel in an inner city, such as Manchester or London, where they run all kinds of risks? In fact, public money is being used to support the unnecessary break-up of families.
      I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to stray into the general area of welfare state and social security policy. I should like, however, to refer to a number of very clear taxation implications in this field. For example, the Bill makes provision for the so-called protection of people in receipt of income at or below income support level from the effect of the extension of VAT to domestic fuel. It must be realised that every time we "protect" certain categories of people below the benefit level against such price increases but do not do the same for others, we produce a perverse social and economic situation. We reduce the gap between what people earn by way of income support and what they would earn if they were in work. As a result, we reduce the marginal return to work. We reduce, at the margin, the willingness of people to go back to work and, thereby, run a higher level of unemployment than is necessary. That is very dangerous.
      If old people have a little income in addition to their pension, if they have worked all their lives and have made a great effort to save a little—perhaps a few hundred pounds a year, amounting to £10,000 or £20,000—out of a modest income, why should they be deprived of benefits on the ground that help is being targeted at people whose income is below a certain arbitrary poverty level? Such a policy would send to society as a whole the signal that work and thrift are not to be rewarded and that people who work and save will be made fools of. Clearly I am referring to those whose incomes are not much above the level that would entitle them to income support and other benefits such as assistance with mortgage interest payments. We would pay a price, in terms of employment and of the propensity to work and save—indeed, the whole culture of society—by going down that road. I hope that the Government will be very cautious.
      This has been a good Budget in extremely difficult circumstances. No Chancellor could produce a blockbuster, popular Budget in the present climate. Indeed, it would be wrong and irresponsible to do so. The Government have been quite ingenious in putting together a package that will enhance revenues. If ingenuity in this respect can be matched with ingenuity and equivalent effort in the reduction of Government expenditure, we shall show the world that we mean to bring our fiscal deficit down. We shall lay the basis for the confidence that our economy needs if the very encouraging upturn that we

      911
      have seen in recent months is to be sustained in the 1990s, as happened under the Conservative Government in the 1980s.
      8.47 pm
      Mr. Salmond: As several hon. Members who have sat through the debate want to participate, I shall be brief. The magic carpet that mysteriously transports Conservative Members into the Chamber has some time to operate.
      As I listened to the Chief Secretary's speech, I had a strange feeling of déjà vu. I was trying to place the quotation that the right hon. Gentleman used at the climax of his address—the one about governing and choosing and choosing to govern. I knew that it was from a resignation speech, but we have had so many of those over the past few years that I could not quite place the valedictory address that was the source. Then it came to me. The speech was that of the noble Lord Lawson addressing the House as Chancellor. As on this occasion the idea came from the Government Front Bench, I thought that it must mark the rehabilitation—or at least the reconstruction and development—of Lord Lawson's position in the Conservative party. That must be very refreshing for the noble Lord after so many years of having the finger pointed at him for all the ills that have befallen the economy. However, it will be some time before the latest fallen Chancellor—who at half-past seven appeared like Banquo's ghost and took a long look at the Government Front Bench—reaches the stage of rehabilitation. I do not know which Minister would play the part of Macbeth, but I would not recommend an overnight stay in the house of any of them.
      In an intervention during the speech of the Chief Secretary, I referred to growth in the economy. The Red Book forecast is 2·5 per cent.—exceptionally modest indeed. A growth rate of 2·5 per cent., on average, over the next few years is not just exceptionally disappointing—it will come nowhere near closing the fiscal deficit in the economy. Thus the Government's hard choices between tax increases and spending reductions will be very severe indeed. It also means that the structural weakness in the United Kingdom economy has been laid bare for all to see.
      We have experienced the longest recession in living memory. Yet the recovery from recession is not so much a bounce back as a clawback. We are not engaged in a dash for growth; if anything, it is a crawl for growth, and the so-called economic miracle of the 1980s has been exposed for what it was—if, of course, the Government's forecasts for growth over the next few years are accurate.
      If I were a member of the Government Front Bench, I would be worried not only about the £1 billion per week deficit in the public sector borrowing requirement but in particular about the £1 billion per week deficit on the balance of payments because, as sure as eggs are eggs, that deficit will ensure that the faltering recovery is aborted in a balance of payments crisis sooner rather than later.
      It was interesting that, apart from a brief mention of the success of exports in recent months, at no point did the Chief Secretary show any appreciation of the extent and inevitability of the enduring problem of the balance of payments, especially when oil forms less of a protection for
      912
      the United Kingdom's balance of payments. I should have liked the Bill to contain a realisation of the key underlying problem of the economy.
      With the Budget, the Government visited a double whammy on the people of Scotland. The first blow was the changes to petroleum revenue tax. For the sake of completeness, I shall read into the record an internal memo distributed to Shell staff in Scotland. It gives what may be called the private company view of the effect of the oil tax changes as opposed to the public view which was hastily cobbled together when the private view was unfortunately released to the newspapers. The internal memo reads:
      "Doubtless you are aware … some very significant changes in Petroleum Revenue Tax regulations will be implemented this year by the Government…The main effect that this will have on exploration is that our net costs will go up by a factor of four. It will be clear that, under these circumstances, our exploration programme will have to be reassessed carefully.
      Strong reductions in this activity will force us into corresponding reductions in staff. In total we are looking at a reduction in manpower of approximately 20–30 per cent. of the present workforce in exploration between now and the end of 1994."
      It is clear and unambiguous that the internal company view, at least of the exploration side of the business, is that the PRT changes will mean the loss of fairly massive numbers of jobs. Let us remember that that is the view of one of the handful of oil companies which were in favour of the PRT changes; one can only imagine what the consequences will be for the vast majority of oil-related companies which were strongly against the PRT changes.
      We should be grateful to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) for trying to enlighten us about the process which ended in something like a farce yesterday when the out-of-order amendments tabled by Conservative Back Benchers were not selected for debate. The hon. Gentleman probably left us none the wiser about the tactics of that group of Conservative Back Benchers, and I should have thought that in-order amendments tabled on an all-party basis may have had a better chance of selection than out-of-order amendments signed only by Conservative Back Benchers.
      My constituents were this morning treated to the sight of the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), on the front page of The Press and Journal, holding a copy of the newspaper and saying that he would fight on against the PRT changes and would be trying to speak in the debate tonight. It must be especially disappointing to them that that particular knight in shining armour has been notable by his absence.
      I do not know if there is still a backroom, back-stair strategy to try to get a concession from the Government to mitigate what will otherwise be a calamity for jobs in the oil industry, a calamity running into the loss of thousands of jobs. To judge from his current demeanour, I do not think that the Financial Secretary is going to enlighten us. It was a great mistake that the issue could not be forced to a vote yesterday because there is clearly all-party concern about the impact of the PRT changes, just when the oil industry is in a cyclical downturn. It is probably one of the most significant matters in the Budget in terms of an immediate effect on jobs.
      The second aspect of the double whammy is the well-ventilated increase in fuel tax. I and my colleagues have for many years campaigned for a cold climate allowance, a recognition within the social security

      913
      structure of the fact that there are different climatic conditions in various parts of the United Kingdom. Often, especially when there are only faltering changes to the current social security provision, we despaired of getting any reasonable concession but never in our wildest imaginings did we think that we would end up with a cold climate surcharge through the imposition of value added tax on fuel. People who pay 30 per cent., 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. more a year on fuel than the United Kingdom average will be infinitely worse off. Let us be clear: the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will not save the world from environmental damage, but it will sacrifice pensioners and low-income families, especially those in areas with poor climatic conditions.
      In summary, this Budget was introduced by a failed Chancellor and it is being ushered by a failed Treasury team.
      8.55 pm
      Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye despite my discourtesy in not being in the Chamber to hear at least two speeches. I was attending an extremely important event elsewhere. You will understand that when the chairman of one's regional television company is hosting an event on the Terrace, and when he is a constituent, a certain priority attaches to being there, especially as the occasion was to say goodbye to the political editor of Central Television, Jon Lander, who has served this House so well in so many ways through the years.
      This is a historic occasion because it is the last Finance Bill that we shall discuss separately from the public expenditure statement. I for one look forward to the new unified structure for presenting the national accounts, which we shall receive in November or early December this year. I suspect that the Treasury team has had an especially difficult battle in Committee trying to remember what is going into the next Finance Bill and what is in the current Bill. The House owes the team a debt of gratitude for the skill with which it negotiated the Bill through its Committee stage.
      I look forward to the fact that in the combined expenditure statement there will be a splitting of capital and current expenditure. It is a long overdue measure which will allow for much greater clarity in the presentation of our national accounts and will enable the House to take a more enlightened and informed view of the true state of the public sector borrowing requirement.
      I welcome the fact that the House recognises that the public sector borrowing requirement is the fundamental issue confronting the Treasury team and the Government. Even the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) seems able to agree with that. Having heard her remarks earlier, however, I am still not sure what the Labour party believes to be the right level for the PSBR. I have heard what Treasury Ministers and others have said about the likely relative weight of the cyclical and structural elements of the PSBR, but I regard the £15 billion to £20 billion structural element as being too high. I welcome unreservedly the steps taken in the Finance Bill to narrow that gap, raising about £6·5 billion of revenue in the next financial year and about £10·5 billion in the year after.
      I cannot, however, unreservedly welcome the Bill. Sadly, certain things that I should have liked to see in it are not. Perhaps those omissions are, at least in part, a product
      914
      of that first year fixation which seems to have mesmerised the Treasury down the years. I am afraid that, just as in business it is sometimes necessary to invest to generate revenues in later years, so it is necessary for the Treasury occasionally to take a view about what sums of money might sensibly be spent in year one to ensure that there are revenues to spend in years two, three and later.
      Before mentioning two or three of those matters, I must declare an interest. For several years I have had the privilege of advising first the General Council of British Shipping and now the Chamber of Shipping, and my work with the shipping industry has persuaded me of the imperative need to do something to help that industry. I am disappointed that nothing in the Bill helps the shipping industry. In Committee on the Floor of the House we had a useful and constructive debate on an amendment when in a series of speeches Conservative Members expressed the concern that the party feels about the future of the shipping industry. It was something of a disappointment to me that Ministers were not able to be more generous in their response to that debate, for the shipping industry would derive special benefit from a more informed and enlightened approach to the first year fixation to which I referred earlier.
      I am in no sense questioning the Chair's selection of amendments, but I regret that new clause 19 was not selected for debate on Report, as that would have enabled us to debate another aspect of the investment needs of the shipping industry. I think that I speak for the shipping industry when I say that I am grateful for the intelligent, informed and constructive debate with Treasury Ministers and officials that has been possible in recent months. As a result, we are at least beginning to build some kind of general agreement about the costs likely to be incurred as a result of the measures that the industry seeks. That is at least a step forward.
      The House will be aware that two principal issues relating to investment in shipping would have been welcome in the Bill: 100 per cent. capital allowances for shipping, the subject of the amendment in Committee, and roll-over relief, the subject of new clause 19. Those measures alone will not produce the revival of the British shipping industry that all hon. Members want. Other measures relating to employment are necessary, but they are not matters for the Finance Bill.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for his recent answer about relative corporate tax regimes as they relate to shipping industries in the European Community. That answer showed that, even on the Treasury figures, the relative, advantage to the British shipping industry is much smaller than is sometimes claimed from the Dispatch Box. The answer did not deal fully with many of the important nuances that apply to shipping company taxation in other EC member states. The combination of those effects is to make the British taxation regime for the shipping industry the most unfavourable in the EC. I, for one, cannot accept that as a permanent state of affairs.
      My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London recently stated from the Dispatch Box that he intended to seek to phase out other countries' state aid. His view is widely shared by Conservative Members. We do not want shipping, or any other industry, to be subsidised unreasonably, but when other countries provide advantages to their companies through the tax system, we should seek the same treatment for ours. My hon. Friend said that

      915
      his policy was to seek to phase out those other state aids, so I am disappointed that the Government are not making much progress with the increases in aid being given by the German, French and Dutch Governments to their shipping industries. All those countries are doing more, and I am afraid that at present our Government seem reluctant to do anything.
      We are in danger of throwing away an industry in which we enjoy real competitive advantages in the international economy. I understand that there is a problem with the way we do our public accounts. Who should pick up the bill? The Department of Transport obviously would not be happy with an increase in its budget provision for that sector without receiving some additional total funding from the Treasury, although it is worth recalling that only 2 per cent. of Department of Transport expenditure goes on air and sea combined. The Ministry of Defence, which ought to have a vested interest in picking up the bill because of the enormous bonus that a strong British merchant fleet provides to the country's defence, is also reluctant. The Treasury, because of the first year problem that I mentioned, seems to be equally reluctant. If I were an entrepreneurial member of the Cabinet I would beseech the Treasury to be allowed to pick up the bill in year one, so long as I could have the profits in years two, three, four, five and six, because I would have a lot more money to spend if I took that approach.
      I especially agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) about residence and domiciliary rules. London remains the maritime centre of the world, and that is in large part due to the presence of foreign nationals engaged in shipping activities. It has been a long-running obsession of the Inland Revenue to try to tax those people on the same footing as British residents, which would kill the goose that lays the golden egg and drive those residents elsewhere, causing a great loss to the British economy. So I am glad that at least we seem to have resisted that temptation in the Bill.
      Another industry that might have looked for slightly more sympathetic treatment in the Bill is the British beer industry. There must be concern about the effects of steadily higher rates of duty on beer, the effect that those rates have on depressing sales in the United Kingdom and especially the encouragement that that provides to personal and even illegal imports with the completion of the European single market. I hope that as Ministers approach the next Finance Bill they will look carefully at the price elasticity of those increases in duty and decide whether they generate additional or less revenue for the Exchequer, either through the port of Dover or in the loss of sales at the local pub.
      The Government have recently taken a number of welcome steps to benefit the car industry, such as the abolition of the special car tax. One has only to look at the increase in car registrations that has occurred as a result. The Government have also benefited the scotch whisky industry. Speaking as someone who intends to holiday in Scotland this year, I am glad of the warm reception I shall get for that measure. The Government have even looked after the horse racing industry. All those measures are good and I hope that a similarly enlightened view will prevail in relation to brewing and shipping.
      916
      It has been said that the Bill contains hard thinks, and it does—especially the matter of VAT on fuel and power. I cannot pretend that I welcome that tax, but I recognise it as essential and one that I will definitely support. It is important to remember that fuel prices have fallen in real terms since 1986. Electricity prices are broadly level, but they are going down this year. Gas prices have fallen by 20 per cent. because of the tough regulation that the Government introduced to accompany the privatisation of those industries. Despite the phased increase in VAT over the next few years, many people will be paying less in real terms for gas than they would have been before the imposition of VAT and before the privatisation of those industries. We must remember that that compares sharply with fuel bills under the previous Labour Government, when electricity prices rose by 30 per cent. in real terms. What was done then to help the poorest members of society?
      I believe that the imposition of VAT is important to raise revenue. That is its clear objective. I also have no hesitation in supporting it on environmental grounds. At Question Time earlier, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained the hypocrisy of the Opposition parties on that issue. We heard then of their policies. We heard what the Opposition said was necessary to protect the environment by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. I especially welcome the endorsement by Friends of the Earth of our attempts to increase measures taken to control carbon dioxide emissions.
      It is right, though, to sound a small warning. I am sure that those on benefit will be fully compensated and I welcome that unreservedly. However, there is the question of those just above benefit levels, especially single elderly people. I hope that the next Finance Bill will not increase the burdens on those with modest incomes who are not eligible for benefit, especially those living on their own. A number of recent measures have had an adverse impact on that group and I hope that the burden will not increase in future Finance Bills.
      The Bill has had a reassuring effect on foreign exchange markets, which has in turn affected interest rates. We should be careful before further reducing interest rates. I hear no great calls from companies in my constituency for a further reduction and we should recognise the implications that any reduction would have for those on fixed incomes.
      I welcome the stability that the Finance Bill and the promise of future levels of revenue that the Government plans have brought to foreign exchange markets, and the beneficial effect that that has had on interest rates as a result.
      The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) earlier accused the Government of not facing facts. I believe that the Bill shows that the Government are all too prepared to face the facts. I would remind her, were she still present, of the rise in manufacturing output. I would also remind her that in my region, the west midlands, manufacturing output and business optimism are running at the highest level for many years—according to one survey, the highest level since the survey began eight years ago.
      The production of Land Rover Discovery vehicles is up by 44 per cent. and 300 more jobs are sought for the production line. Unemployment is down for the fourth month in a row, inflation is at a 29-year low, decades of decline in our share of world trade have been halted,

      917
      exports are up by 6·5 per cent. in the first quarter of this year and manufacturing investment is up by 5·4 per cent. in the same period.
      Those are the facts that the Opposition should be facing and I hope that they will have the courage and honesty to do so, though somehow I doubt it. It is no wonder that in reflecting on the economic strategy of the Labour party and what it might have introduced through the Finance Bill if—God forbid—it had been the party in power, Tribune said on 23 April:
      "Dissatisfaction with Lbour's hopelessly unconvincing economic policies … is widespread within the Shadow Cabinet".
      The success of this Finance Bill has been proved. There is growing recovery, a strengthening pound, falling unemployment and falling inflation. The broad strategy of the Bill is essential to our continued economic success. There are no sins of commission in the Bill. In a mildly critical passage, I have highlighted some sins of omission. I hope that the second 1993 Finance Bill will begin to address those sins of omission, but I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to the House.
      9.9 pm
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to the improvement in the economy, and he referred specifically to the west midlands. I should remind him that there are still about 250,000 unemployed people in the west midlands. In my constituency, there are still redundancy announcements at companies such as GPT, which has announced 300 more redundancies over the past three or four weeks. The same thing is happening at Dunlop in Coventry. I should like to know where all the signs are that the economy in the west midlands is improving in the way in which the hon. Member for Worcester suggested.
      There is no doubt that the Bill does not deal with the hidden time bomb of the balance of payments problem, to which many hon. Members referred. If we analyse the balance of payments, we may find that the industrial base of many of the wealth-creating industries—manufacturing industries—has been eroded. That has an effect on the creation of wealth in the national economy.
      I was interested in the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in which he referred to the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The Government and their partners have not resolved the agricultural problems involved in GATT. Also within that statement—it is relevant to the Bill—the Prime Minister did not hold out any hope that there would be any major reduction of unemployment in the western economies. We must look at the Government's measures, particularly in the Bill, to tackle the balance of payments problem, unemployment and wealth creation.
      Only afortnight ago, together with a number of colleagues, I met the old-age pensioners' lobby. Some hon. Members have referred to the concerns of old-age pensioners and I do not want to dwell too much on that. When old-age pensioners apply for state benefits, their meagre savings are taken into account; as a result, the pensioners do not accrue any interest on them, and that affects their planned budgets. As we know, most old-age pensioners have some form of planned budget to run their homes, so they will be hurt by the increases in VAT and the changes in their state benefits. There is a double whammy which should be minimised.
      918
      Some Cabinet committees are looking at Government expenditure outside the Bill and as part of it. They are looking at cuts in the national health service and there has been talk about charges. About a fortnight ago, thousands of people outside the House expressed great concern about possible post office closures. Therefore, we are not just looking at the Bill in relation to the economy as we understand it. There are hidden factors at work within the economy that the Bill does not necessarily address. I hope that the House will give serious thought to those issues.
      The Government have said that they have a medium-term economic strategy. They have not spelled out to the House what they mean by "medium-term". Do they mean 10 years down the road, three years or 12 months.
      Over the past 14 years, we have had a succession of Budgets that it was claimed would put right all the economic ills of Britain. They have dismally failed to do that. It is no good going back 14 years and making comparisons with the last Labour Government. The economic policies that are practised by the Government are those of the ancient Britons rather than of the modern Britons.
      The Chief Secretary's opening remarks certainly alluded to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). I interpreted his remarks as a job description for the position not only of Chief Secretary but of shadow Chief Secretary. I could not help but think that that job description might have applied in an ideal world; in other words, his words showed the wishes and visions of a Don Quixote rather than those of a strong Government determined to tackle Britain's economic problems and equally determined that sacrifices should be made on a fair basis. The Bill does not address those matters.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Betts: The Budget is almost exclusively about the Government's obsession with curing the Budget deficit that they have created. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in his resignation statement about the absence of long-term policy thinking from the Government. He could also have said, had he been more objective, that the Government's economic policy had been based on a number of obsessions.
      The Government's obsession in the early 1980s was with dealing with inflation, and that obsession caused the disastrous collapse of our manufacturing industry. The Government were then obsessed with financial deregulation, which created the credit boom and the debt overhang with which the Government must now cope. Their obsession with inflation at the end of the 1980s caused the longest recession in Britain since the war. Now the Government's obsession is with the public sector borrowing requirement.
      The Chancellor's one policy statement since his appointment—if one can call it that—said, in effect, that if the recovery is stronger than the Government think, tax incomes will go up. There will then be less of a need for the Government to act by making public expenditure reductions and further tax increases. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true: if the recovery is slightly less strong, there will be a greater need for the Government to impose more tax increases and cut expenditure further. The worry

      919
      is that the Government are obsessed totally with the PSBR. The recovery comes as an afterthought in that process.
      The recovery and the appalling problems of unemployment should be the Government's prime objectives. I do not mean simply short-term unemployment, when people have been out of work for two or three weeks; I mean cases such as the young man to whom I talked in Sheffield recently. He is aged 27 and has never had a job in his life. He has moved from one training scheme to another. He has had the misfortune to spend the whole of his working life—or, in his case, non-working life—under the Government and their policies.
      It is not true for the Government to say that the recovery is under way and that it is all right for them to deal with the PSBR by raising taxes or reducing expenditure. A recent survey of Sheffield industry was carried out by The Star and a local firm of accountants. The results showed that
      "despite the recent spate of news concerning recovery, businesses believe the effects of the recession will be felt into 1994 and beyond and that the real recovery will be delayed until then."
      More than half—62 per cent.—of business respondents
      "thought the recession would end in 1994 and beyond."
      A similar figure—68 per cent.—thought that
      "Government policy was not working for the benefit of UK businesses".
      That is what businesses in Sheffield feel about the Government's claims about the recovery.
      Despite the Chief Secretary's analysis of the PSBR, the problem is totally the Government's fault. Cyclical PSBR problems are the fault of the immediate recession, but the structural problems of the PSBR are the fault of the Government's long-term economic policy and the underlying weakness of the economy.
      It worried me that the Chief Secretary did not answer my earlier question. The Government do not understand the difference between the cyclical and the structural problems of the PSBR or how to deal with them. If they get it wrong and attempt to tackle the structural problems at the wrong point in the economic cycle, they will squash any faint hope of recovery. That will cause damage for years to come. The Government have not faced up to that issue and are not prepared to answer questions about it. They have not seen the need for action, and their idea is that one can somehow mirror the national economic situation as an aggregate of household budgets.
      The Chief Secretary talked about a bank account. That is a throwback to the neoclassical economics idea that macro-economics is merely micro-economics writ large. Let us learn some lessons from the past. Wynne Godley, one of the seven wise men appointed to help the Chancellor, said in a submission to the first round of the Chancellor's review that he believed that eventually the PSBR would
      "add enough to national output to generate enough tax revenue… to cover not only the addition to public expenditure, but also the interest payments which have been generated by the additional public sector debt."
      That answers the Chief Secretary's point about the problems of a cyclical recovery reducing the PSBR by the full amount.
      I agree with my hon. Friends that the real problem for the Government is not the PSBR but the balance of
      920
      payments crisis—a £12 billion debt at a time of economic depression. That boils down to a lack of economic and industrial capacity, caused by the Government's economic policies. The real problem for the Government is that there is a limit to the amount of recovery that can be generated without creating an even bigger balance of payments deficit. There is also a further restraint in the shape of how the cyclical element of the balance of payments can be dealt with during the recovery, and the Government have not come to grips with it. For an answer, they should go to the Bank for International Settlements, which recently said:
      "Growth above the current rate will be required to reduce the budget deficit but could increase the current account deficit. On the other hand, growth compatible with a stable current account deficit might lead to an unsustainable rise in the public sector imbalance."
      The Government are not facing up to that dilemma. It is no use Conservative Members saying that fiscal restraint is not the answer—that the Government can deal with the problem by relaxing monetary policy. We have not heard what the Government's monetary policy is. Do they have one? It is all very well saying that we have left the exchange rate mechanism so there are now no international restrictions; there is every evidence that the Government are merely shadowing the deutschmark at DM2.5. Is there an internal, domestic policy governing the money supply? It is certainly unclear how the Government see monetary and fiscal policy.
      The Government have an obsession with the PSBR to the exclusion of all else. One objective does not make an economic policy. We know from the previous Chancellor that the Government have no long-term policies: in my submission, they have no short-term economic policies either. They have created an appalling economic mess. They should be condemned for that, and doubly condemned for the fact that they have no coherent economic strategy to get the country out of the mess that they have created.
      9.22 pm
      Mr. Hoon: The Bill is based on a lie told to the British people at the time of the general election—the lie that a Conservative Government had no need and no plans to raise taxation, and that people could vote Conservative in the expectation of tax cuts to come. That was the essence of the Conservative appeal to the electorate in the election campaign.
      Within 12 months, the Government brought in the Bill, imposing a series of tax increases and changes on the British people—not only VAT increases and increases in national insurance contributions but alterations in allowances and reliefs against income tax for almost everyone, increasing taxes right across the range of measures that are available to any Government. When challenged repeatedly about that, the Chief Secretary defends each tax regime measure almost cheerfully. He cheerfully admitted this evening that this was a revenue-raising, tax-increasing Budget. He did that in Committee and he has done it again tonight. It is necessary, he says, to fund the £50 billion deficit at the heart of the Government's finances.
      What is curious about the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the deficit is the fact that he has consistently failed to deal with its causes. Where does the deficit come from? It is almost as if it arrived one day from another

      921
      planet and was nothing to do with the Government, who have had, rather distastefully, to deal with it. Yet throughout the election campaign and parliamentary progress on the Bill Conservative Members have attacked the Labour party's spending plans even though a Conservative Government are forecasting a £50 billion deficit. They are therefore not in the strongest position from which to criticise.
      Apart from admitting to a newly discovered enthusiasm for raising taxes, the Government have provided us with little analysis of how they got into such a sorry state. Instead, they continue to try to face both ways, claiming to be the party of tax cuts just as they significantly increase the burden of taxation on the British people.
      In Committee, the Financial Secretary pointed to the limitation on reliefs to 20 per cent. as a sign of the Government's so-called commitment to reducing taxation. It is a remarkable exercise in double-speak for a tax-raising Government to try to claim credit for their so-called commitment to reducing taxes by increasing income tax for anyone with a mortgage, yet pretend that it was a sign of better things to come.
      There is little doubt that the measures are designed to deceive and defraud the electorate—big tax increases now with a view to smaller tax reductions later. Some Conservative Members may ask what is wrong with that. The answer is clear: it is making the British economy and the British people subservient to the interests of the Conservative party in being re-elected. It makes them subservient to the interests of Ministers who want to keep their jobs, ahead of the real interests of the country.
      Anyone who has any doubts about that argument should consider the history of the past two Budgets. The 1992 pre-election Budget was designed to win votes at a time when serious economic commentators were pointing to the dangers of the growing size of the public sector borrowing requirement. When asked about that during the general election, what did Ministers say? Minister after Minister stated that he saw no difficulty with the PSBR, that he had no need to raise taxes, that he had set the right targets for public expenditure.
      Twelve months later, those same Ministers are standing on their heads, their forecasts and promises empty of content and meaning. Are we really to believe that they were genuinely caught out by some apparently unforeseen growth in the PSBR? Those same Ministers, in the 1992 general election campaign, confidently forecast recovery for the British economy. They predicted that their assessment of the country's needs for borrowing and taxation could be contained within the guidelines set out in the 1992 Budget. They had access to all of the relevant Government figures when they said last year that their assessments in April 1992 were accurate. They were either incompetent or dishonest. Which is it? It is important that we and the British people know the answer.
      I have little doubt that the Government plan to make most people's lives more miserable this year, next year, and perhaps even the year after. By 1996, the likely Tory target date for a general election, they can start easing back. They can look for tax cuts and handouts going into a general election campaign, paid for by the tax increases in this year's Finance Bill. That is their real policy. It is not so much an economic policy as a re-election policy. By then, as electricity and gas bills start to hit the doormats with their 17·5 per cent. Government surcharge, the British people will he looking for change. The Government will no
      922
      doubt introduce proposals to reduce the level of income tax, not for the benefit of the British economy, but simply to boost their prospects of re-election.
      The Government cannot expect that deception to work yet again. It is time for them to stop playing politics with the British economy and to face up to the fundamental problems that their policies have created.
      9.27 pm
      Mr. Mandelson: It is no secret that Opposition Members hate the Budget, which is being implemented by the Bill. We hate it for what it does not do about unemployment, which has dramatically increased in so many regions and is still chronic in regions such as mine. We hate it for the unfairness of its measures and the savage impact that it will have on so many of the needy and most vulnerable. We hate it for the distance that the Government have travelled from the glossy gift-wrapped prospectus that they presented to the electorate in the election campaign last year, notwithstanding the fact that Opposition Members will be the political beneficiaries of the betrayal of so many of the Tories' supporters last year.
      We wanted to see in this Budget ideas to get the young people in our constituencies and communities back to work, to get the long-term unemployed back to work, or at least on proper quality training schemes where they can pick up skills in readiness for the recovery, whenever it occurs. In no sense have we seen a Budget for jobs. That is undoubtedly the greatest indictment of the Budget and the Bill, the effect of which will be felt by so many people in our constituencies.
      The Bill is grossly unfair and unequal in its impact on different sections of the community. It is ironic, although perhaps not surprising, that those of us who served on the Committee considering the Finance Bill spent many hours sorting out problems and making things better—but, tragically, not for the people in real and desperate need. Throughout, the Government cared most about their friends—for example, the Lloyd's names, for whom they have created what will probably turn out to be a highly beneficial tax shelter. For large oil companies, there is massively reduced petroleum revenue duties. As speaker after speaker has reminded us, this measure will destroy jobs in exploration among the medium-sized and smaller oil companies as well as the onshore activity that is so important in my constituency and others in Scotland and in the north-east.
      The Committee even took time to create a tax break for wealthy foreigners so that they could buy homes here without running the risk that they might be caught for tax. Tory Members may say that that was worth only £10 million, but was that £10 million used for the poor, for the low-paid, for struggling businesses? No, it was for the friends of the Tory party. It was particularly symbolic for that.
      It was noteworthy, but probably predictable, that nothing of equal value requiring similar effort was done throughout the proceedings of the Committee to close the loopholes and stop the abuses that offer such opportunities to the already wealthy and well-off, and other friends of the Conservative party. The Government know how to look after their friends. They have not even bothered to chase up those missing millions—the £1·7 billion-in last year's uncollected taxes. That is twice the sum that went uncollected in the previous year and possibly, most

      923
      significantly of all, twice the expected revenue from VAT on fuel that the Government are intending to claim next year.
      In Committee, we should have spent our time implementing a straight quid pro quo, ensuring that there were measures in place to collect the uncollected taxes from the most wealthy and privileged, rather than extending VAT on fuel—a tax on warmth, light and heat. It is not surprising that that is seen as the most notorious, nefarious and objectionable feature of the Bill, which will haunt the Government from here to Christchurch and back via Newbury.
      The contrast between what the Government promised that they would do for the low-paid, the typical taxpayer and the middle-income earner and those whom they are actually helping goes to the heart of what is so damnable and objectionable about the Bill. It has laid bare the whole cynical, fraudulent case that the Conservative party put to the voters at the election last year. The Tories said that it would be safe to reduce taxes and possible to lower borrowing and that it would not be necessary to increase costs or impose new charges. They said that economic growth would square the circle and deal with the details, yet the Budget and the Bill have put up taxes. The Bill has done nothing to get people back to work, enabling borrowing to be reduced; instead, it has increased the cost of living, of mortgages and employment and provided not a single new policy or fresh initiative to create new jobs or to spur enterprise and growth.
      Overwhelmingly, people recognise that the country is in a hole. Everyone knows it and the Chancellor has even said it. Hardly a soul does not realise that, in the long term, we cannot live with the public sector financial deficit we have now. People know that difficult decisions have to be taken; they do not expect anything else. However, they do expect the Government to accept responsibility and to take action to get the economy moving. They expect the Government to respond vigorously and imaginatively to the crisis of unemployment. Above all, they expect the Government to be fair on the tax measures that they take. On all those counts, the Government have failed and the Finance Bill deserves to fail as well.
      9.34 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury opened this debate by referring to the views of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. He treated us to a fairly partial run through the OECD's views of the British economy before describing himself as odious. In returning to those aspects of the OECD's review of the British economy which the Chief Secretary overlooked, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the OECD's review, which it instigated and reported on in its publication "Economic Outlook", in which it considered the health of the public sector in all OECD countries.
      One would not have learnt this from the Chief Secretary's contribution to the debate, but the OECD found in its review that the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with other OECD countries. Between 1989 and 1993, the United Kingdom's deficit widened by
      924
      more than 9 per cent. of GDP, and that is more than that of any other G7 country. That point puts the Chief Secretary's remarks in context.
      The unique depth and duration of the United Kingdom's recession are clearly partly responsible for that state of affairs, although I know that it is fashionable—and probably obligatory—for Conservative Members to blame the world recession for the shrinkage of the British economy.
      The OECD estimates that 2·6 per cent. of GDP—about one third of the deficit—is a result of the recession. However, when the Chief Secretary was asked to quote even the broadest of estimates for those figures, he declined to do so. He could at least have quoted the OECD in that respect as he was keen enough to quote it on other matters. The OECD estimate would leave a PSBR of 5·7 per cent. of GDP which is structural. That means that the borrowing will remain even when the economy recovers. That structural deficit is a measure of the health of public sector finances, purged of the effects of short-term economic cycles. That is worse in the United Kingdom than in any other G7 country bar Italy. That is the problem which the Budget attempts to address.
      Conservative Members always ask what Labour would do in such circumstances. I will answer that not by saying what Labour would do in the future, but by saying what Labour has done in the past. The problem has been made substantially worse by tax cuts of £6 billion given in 1988 and tax cuts of a further £2 billion to which we were treated in 1992 before the general election. Labour believed then, and we believe now, that those tax cuts were beyond what public finances could afford, and the blame for that lies with the Government and with no one else.
      If people want to know what we said at the time, I can tell them that we voted against those measures. That is a matter of public record. A Labour Government would not have got us into the position into which the present Conservative Government have got us.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) pointed out, before the last election the Government said that the economy would grow by 2 per cent. in 1992–93, by 3·25 per cent. this year, by 3·75 per cent. next year and by 3·5 per cent. in 1995–96. The Red Book this year showed that the economy was stagnant for 1992–93. It forecast growth of just 2 per cent. this year, 2–5 per cent. next year and 2·75 per cent. for each year after that.
      The Government boast of recovery and revise the forecasts down. The Government promised recovery and they now show that the economy did not grow for a year. The Government promised vigorous economic growth for the next five years, but they now say that the economy will be just 2 per cent. larger this year rather than the 5·25 per cent. promised last year. The Government have cut their forecast for the size of the economy in 1996–97 by 7 per cent., or some £55 billion.
      That £55 billion means that the economy will be poorer by the equivalent of £1,000 a year for every man, woman and child in the country. Those are not short-term forecasts subject to the inevitable uncertainties arising from the vagaries in economic cycles. Those changes reflect a fundamentally different view about the capacity of the United Kingdom economy to grow and to improve living standards and pay for public services.
      Last year the Government's figures showed a public sector borrowing requirement of £32 billion for the current

      925
      year; the Red Book shows that the Government now expect to borrow £50 billion. Last year, the Government showed the deficit declining to £6 billion in 1996–97. The Government said that there would be no need to cut spending or raise taxes and that the public finances would return to balance as the economy followed the recovery that I have just outlined. It has already been revealed that the £6 billion was massaged downwards on the orders of the former Chancellor, but now we are told that the borrowing required will be £46 billion if the Government do not raise taxes.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has pointed out that the Government painted a false picture last year. The Government said that the economy would recover; it did not do so for another year. The Government said that recovery would be vigorous; now they take a significantly gloomier view of growth prospects. The Government said that taxes would not need to be raised. Now, in line with the new realism about economic growth that the Chief Secretary treated us to earlier, he has said that taxes need to be increased.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) pointed out, the Conservatives were not content with lying about our tax policies before the general election; they comprehensively lied about their own.
      The Chief Secretary, in opening the debate, asserted that the Budget was broadly distributionally neutral, with the average proportion of income lost equal across income deciles at around 2·5 per cent. But 2·5 per cent. of income is of differing importance to the poorest and richest groups in society. Is it not disproportionate to ask the rich and poor alike for the same proportion of their income to reduce the deficit?
      Contrasting the distributional effects of what happens when the Government need to raise tax rather than cut it, surely it is right to assert that they have increased national insurance contributions when they have cut income tax. Individuals start to pay national insurance contributions on earnings at least £1,000 lower than those on which income tax is paid. The Government have frozen income tax allowance, which raises money from people on the lowest incomes, when they have cut the higher rates of tax.
      All in all, the richest 10 per cent. of the population are now £4,500 a year better off after the tax and benefit changes since 1979, and the poorest 10 per cent. of our fellow citizens are actually £50 a year worse off.
      None of this is popular, but it is typical of this Prime Minister's decision making that, when he was faced with an unpopular Chancellor and an unpopular Budget, he got rid of the Chancellor and kept the Budget.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has pointed out that the Government have cynically dressed up the extension of VAT to domestic fuel as an environmental measure. The truth of the matter is that it is nothing more than a large tax rise. VAT on fuel is the most regressive extension of the VAT base. Before knock-on effects and compensation, it will raise 2 per cent. of net income from the poorest 10 per cent, and less than 0·5 per cent. from the richest 10 per cent. I ask even Conservative hon. Members, how can that be fair? At least some Conservative Members realised last night that it was not fair, and, very bravely, they voted with us in the Lobby to assert what one of them described as social justice. I noticed that his colleagues stared at him as if he had said something peculiarly offensive. Perhaps
      926
      the Conservative party does regard social justice as something peculiarly offensive, but I bet that the electors of Christchurch do not.
      Mr. Dorrell: They are not voting for the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Brown: I am not standing in the election. I prefer the climate in Newcastle.
      As domestic heat and light are necessities, fuel consumption will not be cut by much as a result of this tax rise. If anyone is still giving the argument about the environment any credence, he cannot plausibly argue that the tax increase will do much to reduce the emissions of CO, in line with the United Nations climate for change convention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has pointed out, the changes hit the poorest the hardest.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) asked who gains and who loses in this year's Finance Bill. If the Government decided to have their legislation financially sponsored rather than the arrangements that pertain at present, this could be known as the British Petroleum Finance Bill. The petroleum industry would be happy to acknowledge sponsorship of this year's measures.
      The heads of foreign states have also gained from the Bill. Those with an interest in foreign affairs will be pleased to learn that they remain relieved of any obligation to pay tax on their British income. The hereditary rulers of Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Dubai and Oman are now treated more favourably than our sovereign, but they gave large sums of money to the Conservative party and our sovereign did not—[interruption.] Is the Chief Secretary trying to assert that Her Gracious Majesty gave money to the Conservative party, because I cannot believe it? I must have misheard that sedentary intervention.
      The Bill makes a small concession to wealthy foreigners with tax-exempt status. If Asil Nadir were to return to this country, he would benefit from that little £10 million change to our tax regime. The British people, who have not contributed generously enough on a voluntary basis to Conservative party funds, are subject to a massive tax rise.
      In a previous Third Reading speech on the Finance Bill I said that discussing the Finance Bill without the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) would be like discussing Hamlet without the ham. This will be the last Bill where we discuss the Budget with the right hon. Gentleman. Personally, I regret his passing. It is probably worth pointing out that that is the first nice thing that has been said about the right hon. Gentleman in the entire debate. What an astonishing legacy for a former Chancellor that not a single Conservative Member has said something nice about him.
      Mr. Duncan: I did.
      Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman protests his innocence, although I am not sure that it would be regarded as innocence by his colleagues in the Treasury. I hope that he will be rewarded with being forgiven with the passage of time.
      It is sad that hon. Members who followed the Chancellor loyally through the Division Lobbies on the Budget could not find a decent word to say for him when discussing the legislation that he has brought to fruition.

      927
      His epitaph is not a single kind word from Conservative Members, even from his loyal deputy, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
      The Bill includes value added tax on fuel; ACT changes hitting charities and pension funds; a 1 per cent. increase in employees' national insurance contributions; the non-indexation of allowances; restricting mortgage tax relief and married couples allowances to the new 20 per cent. band; and significant new increases in excise duties, notably on petrol and cigarettes.
      Tonight we are invited not just to acknowledge the extent of the Government's mismanagement of the economy but to pay for it. I suggest that my hon. Friends reject that invitation.
      9.48 pm
      Mr. Dorrell: First, I wish to respond to the comment of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont). The most eloquent testimony of my hon. Friends' support for the Budget introduced by my right hon. Friend is for them to support the Third Reading tonight. I have not the slightest doubt that they will all take the opportunity to record their support for the Budget proposals tabled by my right hon. Friend on 16 March.
      The Third Reading debate is the end of a long process in which the House and the Standing Committee considered the proposals tabled by my right hon. Friend on 16 March. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) spoke about the petroleum revenue tax—one of the major tax proposals contained in the Budget. It has properly detained the Committee of the whole House and the Standing Committee as we have ensured that the issue is properly addressed. The concerns expressed within the oil industry and oil supply industries were also properly discussed.
      It is true to say of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), who has also taken a keen interest in the subject, that they accept, as do the vast majority of those actively involved in the oil industry, the objective of seeking to remove the distortions that the existing system of high rate and narrow base imposes on the oil industry through petroleum revenue tax. That objective is common ground.
      As the Bill has proceeded, we have had considerable discussions on the nature of the transition arrangements which secure the transition from where we are now to where we all want to be. In the course of the Bill's consideration, the Government have sought to respond to the concerns expressed about the transition arrangements, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough. The time has come to record the fact that, as the House has decided matters and the Bill has proceeded, it has become clear that there is a difference of opinion about the desirability of any further action on transitional arrangements. The House has made a decision in favour of the transition arrangements contained in the Bill.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister understand the deep sense of betrayal felt in the oil industry this morning about the events over the weekend? Can he give a clear answer to the following question: at his meeting with his
      928
      right hon. and hon. Friends on Thursday night, did he give a hint that he was likely to change his mind? If the answer is no, the placing of the amendments on the amendment paper was duplicitous, and if the answer is yes, he was being duplicitous.
      Mr. Dorrell: There is nothing duplicitous about placing amendments on the amendment paper. I listened to the representations made by my hon. Friends and undertook—as I should in the circumstances—to report and discuss those representations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After the argument on the issue, it is important for us to be clear about matters.
      The Government believe that the position set out in the Bill, on both the transition arrangements and the final objective, will endure in the long term. I can think of no perception more likely to undermine exploration and appraisal activity in the short term than the perception—if allowed to develop—that the Government may be about to reconsider the issues. That would be a powerful incentive for oil companies to delay exploration and appraisal until a future date when exploration and appraisal relief may be available. The Government have no plans to revisit the issue. We believe that the proposals contained in the Bill will endure, and when the results are clear our judgments will be vindicated.
      We have agreed to look again at the narrow issue of the treatment of pipelines. We make no commitment, except in the broadest sense of maintaining the tax system—which is our continuing duty—to look again at any of the other issues relating to that subject contained in the Bill.
      Mr. Salmond: The Minister knows all about undermining confidence in the oil industry. He said a few seconds ago that the House had made a decision on the subject. The House has had no opportunity, subsequent to the Government's refusal to make a concession in Committee, to make a decision on the subject, other than to vote in a few minutes' time.
      Mr. Dorrell: The House has considered the matter both in Committee of the whole House and in Standing Committee.
      As the Third Reading of the debate has unfolded, I have listened to speeches from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. One factor which has become clear to me, particularly from the speeches of Opposition Members, is that not a single Opposition Member has made any serious reference to the fact that there are clear signs that recovery is under way in the British economy, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary made clear in his opening speech on Third Reading.
      That perspective was almost totally lacking in the speeches made by Labour Members. One listened in vain to their speeches to hear a reference to the survey of the Confederation of Business Industry, which records the best sentiment among British business men since April 1983. One listened in vain to hear about the increase in retail sales of 3 per cent. over the past 12 months. One listened in vain for a reference to the increase in car registrations, which are up by 6·5 per cent. over the past 12 months.
      Despite Labour Members' protestations of interest in the manufacturing sector, one listened in vain to them for a reference to the fact that manufacturing output has been

      929
      increasing for 12 months but has now reversed in the first five months of this year to more than half of the total loss of manufacturing output in the recession. Despite all the occasions over the years on which Labour Members have said that unemployment is the key factor, one listened in vain to their speeches for a single reference to the fact that unemployment has fallen in the past four months. That is good news, but reference was not made to it by Labour Members. I have further bad news for them—
      Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dorrell: I will not give way.
      The further bad news is that we intend that the recovery which is under way, and to which Labour Members did not refer, will be sustained because the Government are determined to deliver the disciplines that will ensure that it is sustained.
      I refer to the discipline of sound money. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has taken to quoting my speeches back at me. That is great flattery. Because she repeatedly quotes from my speech about the dangers of inflation, I can only assume that she agrees with those dangers. For example, I assume that she agrees that inflation causes economic waste by giving inaccurate signals and introducing short-term planning horizons.
      I assume that the hon. Lady agrees that inflation causes social injustice, which ensures that the system does not reward those who produce—it rewards those with the sharpest elbows. Inflation is a tax on the unsophisticated, to the benefit of the sophisticated. I am pleased to welcome her support for those propositions.
      The hands of Labour Members are not clean on the subject of inflation—far from it. In the 1970s, the Labour Government were responsible for an average inflation rate of 15 per cent. during their years in office. What were they doing from 1986 to 1988 when the misjudgments which we acknowledge were being made led to an excess inflation rate? They were busy winding the handle that distributed the seeds of the harvest that came later.
      In those years, what was Labour Members' formula for interest rates? They travelled the country telling us that interest rates should be fixed by a simple formula—X minus 2 per cent. when X was the prevailing interest rate. Whatever the interest rate, they wanted to see it cut. They did not see the dangers of inflation. If we had followed their nostrums, we would have made the matter worse.
      In sharp contrast to that world, the Government have delivered the sound money and price stability objective that is the necessary precondition to sustainable growth. We have also made it clear that we will deliver sound public finance. That is the second discipline, which Labour Members talk about but on which we act. How would a Labour Government deliver sound public finance? It would not be through tax increases. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) shut and locked that door before the Budget when he said that to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT at that time would be a mistake. How would a Labour Government close the Budget deficit? Would the hon. Gentleman look to the hon. Member for Peckham? Would the whole burden rest on her? She wants more money for hospitals, schools, training and overseas aid. Under her, a spending round would be not so much a spending round as an auction.
      930
      The Bill lies at the heart of the difference between the parties. Others talk about the deficit. They recognise that it threatens sustainable recovery, but when asked what they would do about it, answer comes there none. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said of his party:
      "We have failed to come up with an alternative analysis."
      That is the luxury of opposition—sound-bite populism, the opportunity to be all things to all men. Labour Members have forgotten the dictum of Aneurin Bevan:
      "The language of socialism is the religion of priorities."
      The modern Labour party has lost its faith. The world in which Labour Members live is not the real world. The House knows it and the British people know it, which is why the British people have consistently rejected the plausible blandishments of the Opposition.
      The Bill represents the Government's continuing commitment to deliver the disciplines which are the precondition of economic success, and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time—
      The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 274.

      Division No. 331]

      [10.00 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Cash, William

      Alexander, Richard

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Churchill, Mr

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Clappison, James

      Amess, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ancram, Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Colvin, Michael

      Ashby, David

      Congdon, David

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Conway, Derek

      Atkins, Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

      Couchman, James

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

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

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bates, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Day, Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bendall. Vivian

      Devlin, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Dicks, Terry

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dover, Den

      Booth, Hartley

      Duncan, Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dunn, Bob

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dykes, Hugh

      Bowis, John

      Eggar, Tim

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Elletson, Harold

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bright, Graham

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Browning, Mrs. Angela

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Evennett, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Faber, David

      Burns, Simon

      Fabricant, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Butcher, John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Butler, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      931

      Forth, Eric

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maclean, David

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fry, Peter

      Madel, David

      Gale, Roger

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gallie, Phil

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorst, John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

      Mates, Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Milligan, Stephen

      Hague, William

      Mills, Iain

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Hannam, Sir John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Moss, Malcolm

      Harris, David

      Needham, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hayes, Jerry

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hendry, Charles

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hicks, Robert

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Page, Richard

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Paice, James

      Horam, John

      Patnick, Irvine

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pawsey, James

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

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Pickles, Eric

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Richards, Rod

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Riddick, Graham

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

      Jessel, Toby

      Robathan, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kilfedder, Sir James

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knapman, Roger

      Sackville, Tom

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shersby, Michael

      Legg, Barry

      Sims, Roger

      Leigh, Edward

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lennox-Boyd, Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lidington, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Lord, Michael

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      932

      Sproat, Iain

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Viggers, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Steen, Anthony

      Walden, George

      Stephen, Michael

      Waller, Gary

      Stern, Michael

      Ward, John

      Stewart, Allan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Streeter, Gary

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sumberg, David

      Watts, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wells, Bowen

      Sykes, John

      Whitney, Ray

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wilkinson, John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Willetts, David

      Thomason, Roy

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Yeo, Tim

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

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tracey, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trend, Michael

      Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

      Trotter, Neville

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ann

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Alton, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Anderson. Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Corbett, Robin

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Ashton, Joe

      Cousins, Jim

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cox, Tom

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cryer, Bob

      Barnes, Harry

      Cummings, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bayley. Hugh

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dalyell, Tam

      Beggs, Roy

      Darling, Alistair

      Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

      Davidson, Ian

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Bennett, Andrew F.

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benton, Joe

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

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dewar, Donald

      Berry, Dr. Roger

      Dixon, Don

      Betts, Clive

      Dobson, Frank

      Boateng, Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Boyce, Jimmy

      Dowd, Jim

      Boyes, Roland

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bradley, Keith

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Eastham, Ken

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

      Enright, Derek

      Burden, Richard

      Etherington, Bill

      Byers, Stephen

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Caborn, Richard

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Callaghan, Jim

      Fatchett, Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell. Menzies (Fife NE)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Flynn, Paul

      Canavan, Dennis

      Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foulkes, George

      Clapham, Michael

      Fraser, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Galloway, George

      Clarke. Tom (Monklands W)

      Gapes. Mike

      933

      Garrett, John

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      George, Bruce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Jowell, Tessa

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Gordon, Mildred

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Gould, Bryan

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

      Graham, Thomas

      Leighton, Ron

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lewis, Terry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Litherland, Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gunnell, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Hain, Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Hall, Mike

      Loyden, Eddie

      Hanson, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Hardy, Peter

      McAllion, John

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Harvey, Nick

      McCartney, Ian

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Macdonald, Calum

      Heppell, John

      McKelvey, William

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      McLeish, Henry

      Hinchliffe, David

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hoey, Kate

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Madden, Max

      Home Robertson, John

      Mahon, Alice

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marek, Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Meacher, Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Meale, Alan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hutton, John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Ingram, Adam

      Milburn, Alan

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Jamieson, David

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Janner, Greville

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

      934

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Short, Clare

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Simpson, Alan

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mudie, George

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

      Snape, Peter

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Spearing, Nigel

      Olner, William

      Spellar, John

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Patchett, Terry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pendry, Tom

      Stevenson, George

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis

      Prescott, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vaz, Keith

      Purchase, Ken

      Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Radice, Giles

      Walley, Joan

      Randall, Stuart

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Redmond, Martin

      Watson, Mike

      Reid, Dr John

      Welsh, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Richardson, Jo

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Roche, Mrs. Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rogers, Allan

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooker, Jeff

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Wise, Audrey

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Ruddock, Joan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sheerman, Barry

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Education (Assisted Places)
10.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.
As hon. Members will know from debates in previous years, these draft amendment regulations are quite specific in their purpose. They are simple amendments to the principal regulations, which are the Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1989. As such, I shall restrict my comments to these amendments only and will briefly explain their purpose to the House.
The amending regulations provide for the uprating of the parental contribution tables, which we have done on an annual basis since the inception of the scheme, and set out how much parents must pay towards their child's assisted place. There is also a small number of other technical amendments. I am sure that the House will find that the amendments I shall describe are quite straightforward.
Regulation 1 of the draft regulations deals with citation, commencement, application and interpretation. The regulations are to come into force on 27 August 1993.
Regulation 2 of the draft regulations increases the allowance made when calculating parents' total relevant income for each dependent child other than the assisted place holder. The amount is raised from £1,105 to £1,125—that is, by the same percentage which applies to the uprating of the parental contribution scales, to which I shall return in a moment. This allowance is helpful to parents with larger families, and uprating it will ensure that their position is not worsened.
Regulation 3 deals purely with technical amendments. They are necessary in order to keep the definition of "total parental income" for the purposes of the scheme in line with tax legislation. They also update the wording of the regulations to reflect current terminology—hence the need now to refer in the regulations to the new Child Support Agency.
I come now to the main purpose of setting these regulations before the House today. Regulation 4 sets out the income bands used for assessing parents' contributions towards fees. These bands have been uprated to take account of the movement in the retail prices index to April of this year—that is, by 1·9 per cent. The threshold at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees is raised from £9,056 to £9,225, with corresponding increases in the thresholds for higher percentage contributions from income. The effect of this amendment is that parents will not be asked to increase contributions above the rate of inflation. They will continue to contribute roughly the same proportion of their income as they did last year.
I believe that the House will find this to be an equitable measure, taking into account the fact that parents in the scheme earn considerably less than the national average income. Assistance under the scheme follows the principle that the lower the income, the greater the Government assistance should be. The threshold for full remission of fees, to which I have just referred, is set deliberately low so that the least well-off families benefit most. The scale then rises by a fairly steep curve so that better-off families get reduced, and eventually no, assistance. I believe this to be
936
right and in keeping with the aims of the scheme—to open doors of opportunity to those who would otherwise never be able to contemplate paying fees.
Mr. Roy Beggs: How many children in Great Britain are now benefiting from the assisted places scheme?
Mr. Forth: Approximately 27,000. I can give the hon. Gentleman a more precise figure later, if he wants one.
The provisions and amendments that I have just described are necessary technicalities to ensure the continued smooth running of the assisted places scheme, which is proving to be increasingly popular with parents, as is evidenced by the unprecedented rate of take-up in schools. Nevertheless, the Government continue to take steps to ensure that the scheme provides for a realistic contribution from both the taxpayer and the parents and, by restricting the level of fees that can be applied by schools to assisted pupils, a continuation of the part played by individual schools as partners with the Government in this very successful scheme.
I commend the regulations to the House.
10.23 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: These amending regulations provide us with an opportunity to look again at this running sore on the body educational. There is no doubt that this scheme remains wrong in principle. It is quite simply a subsidy to the private sector, as is recognised by many people.
This year, there are 21 private schools receiving more than £750,000 each, and seven receiving more than £1 million each. There are 63 schools with more than 20 per cent. of their pupils on the assisted places scheme: 13 have 30 per cent. of their pupils on the scheme, and in two schools the proportion is more than 40 per cent. The position was made quite clear as long ago as 1986, when the headmaster of King Edward's school, 200 of whose pupil—if my memory serves me well—are on the scheme, said:
"It will not, therefore, surprise the reader if I defend the assisted places scheme. I believe that it is a good scheme. But I must be honest: it is a good scheme partly because it helps independent schools … While a very small minority of schools on the scheme—the Winchesters and Sedburghs—may indeed have no need of state support, the majority will have benefited considerably."
So the headmaster of an independent school sees this as a specific subsidy to his school.
Mr. Keith Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, contrary to what he has just said, this represents a saving to the state sector? The vast majority of children who take up the scheme would otherwise be educated in the state sector. The amount that the Government have to pay is smaller than the sum that would be involved if those children were being educated in state schools.
Mr. Griffiths: That is not true. Some years ago, even the Independent Schools Information Service drew attention to the fact that a place in an independent school cost over £200 more than one in a state school. Later information put the figure at £400. It is indeed a costly scheme, and a subsidy to the private sector. It is also a blatant attempt to cream off very able children from the maintained sector.
Mr. James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman mentioned King Edward's school. I presume that he means the one in Birmingham, which appeared on a list produced by one of his hon. Friends. The real point about schools such as King Edward's and Haberdashers' Aske's in my constituency is that they could fill the places with pupils whose parents were prepared to pay the fees. Certainly, Haberdashers' Aske's, King Edward's in Birmingham and, I suspect, many others on the scheme could fill the places many times over in that way but, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, they seek to open doors of opportunity for children whose parents are not able to afford the fees. That is what the scheme is doing, and the hon. Gentleman has no evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made a speech, responding to a point that I have not even made. My argument is that the assisted places cost the Government more money than places in maintained secondary schools and that it would be much better if the money were used to improve the facilities and increase the number of teachers in the state schools.
As I was saying before the hon. Gentleman's speech, the scheme is a blatant attempt to cream off very able children from the maintained sector. If the Government were truly concerned about the quality of education in the maintained sector, they would be doing everything possible to ensure that the policies were in place and the facilities and teachers available to make certain that all children could be educated to the best of their ability.
What is even worse, given the fact that there is a subsidy and an attempt to cream off the best pupils from the maintained schools, there is absolutely no evidence that the extra cost means better results. Her Majesty's inspectorate and the Audit Commission have examined the issues exhaustively and concluded that there is absolutely no evidence that pupils who go to such schools benefit in any way. In fact, when the scheme was introduced, John Rae, then headmaster of Westminster school, said:
"The Scheme was based on a false premise: that an independent school was automatically a better place to educate a bright child."
Plainly, it is not, and the scheme is a waste of money.
The scheme encourages educational snobbery which undermines maintained schools. It provides opportunities for a few at the expense of the many.
Mr. Harry Greenway: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman knocks the education of poor children, because that is what he is doing. Is he aware that the assisted places scheme costs £95 million a year out of an education budget of £17 billion? If he thinks that children do not profit from the scheme he need only talk to poor parents in my constituency who will tell him the truth. Why should they not have the same opportunity as others?
Mr. Griffiths: It was the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) who said that the scheme covered about 1 per cent. of all pupils. If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about the education of poor children, why does he not ensure that the facility is available to every child? The scheme is highly selective. It would be far better if the Government gave every state school an extra £400
938
per pupil. We would then see what more could be achieved by that simple expedient, without encouraging such a highly divisive system.
The idea of helping poor children has failed on the Government's own objectives. In the Daily Mail on 25 June 1981, the right hon. Member for Brent, North said that he wanted the scheme to cater for able children from the poorest homes. Lord Joseph, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, said that he saw the scheme as a way of producing a greater social mix in independent schools. With the scheme helping only 1 per cent. of pupils, that plainly is not happening.
Although it is true that two thirds of pupils on the scheme come from families with below average incomes, a third come from families with above average incomes. If the Government were intent on helping the poorest families, they would divert all the help to those on below average incomes. What gives the game away is that well over half the parents of even those on low incomes went to independent or selective schools. So we have a self-generating scheme: those who know about it and are in a position to take advantage of it do so.
If the schools are so good, why do the Government not provide the extra money for all children? The plain fact is that they do not. Why do they not spend the money to help able pupils in maintained schools? The money would be put to much better use there. Why do they not use the money to provide more nursery school places? There is a well-established and well-researched link between the provision of good nursery education and better performance in schools. That would be a far more effective use of public moneys.
What is worse is that we are now seeing that the scheme is badly managed. In 1992 the spending has to be capped to a maximum increase of 12 per cent. In the maintained sector, an increase of only 7 per cent. was allowed. In 1990–91 there was a £3 million overspend, even though 17 per cent. of the places remained unfilled. In 1991–92 the scheme was almost £11 million over budget. This year it is estimated that there will be a £78 million outturn in the Department's expenditure plans. Next year the plan is to spend £95 million. However, on table 10 on page 16 of the same document, the Government say that there will be only 286 extra places next year, but they are spending £17 million more. If that is computed on a per capita basis, it is nearly £60,000 extra per place. I invite the Minister to check the figures and explain to me how I have misread the tables.
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is likely to be a steep increase in demand for places from Kent, where the Liberals, who have just taken control with the assistance of the Labour party, have decided to cut, in maintained schools, the teaching of history, geography and English in favour of what they call "enhanced centres of experience"?
Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that, on the Department's figures, there will be only 286 more places next year, so if the hon. Gentleman is right there will be a lot of disappointed parents in Kent.
The whole scheme shows the Government's belief that they have failed. They are in effect admitting that they do not think that the maintained sector offers a good enough education for able children, so they want them to go to the independent sector. Funnily enough, it was the hon.

939
Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who described the assisted places scheme in February last year as a lifebelt for many a talented child. He added:
"Although I am a Conservative I do have reservations about subsidising the independent sector for all time."
The point is that the money would be much better spent in the maintained sector.
Surplus places also come into the equation. Thirty-four of these schools have more than 200 pupils on the assisted
940
places scheme, so children are being taken away from the maintained schools in some boroughs and counties. It would be far better if the Government devoted the resulting extra resources to the maintained sector. The Government want to uprate the scheme so as to keep going their preferential treatment of a small minority of parents. That is deplorable. It shows up the ideological divide between us: the Government are intent on giving privileges to the very few while we believe that the money should be spent on extending opportunities for excellence in education to everybody.
10.36 pm
Mr. George Walden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for recalling some words that I uttered some time last year. Since the speech that he has just made was rather similar to speeches he has made before on these occasions, he will forgive me if I deliver a speech similar to the one I made last time.
Although I continue to approve of the assisted places scheme, we ought to keep an open mind and enter, perhaps, into a more sophisticated debate than is possible when phrases such as "running sore", "creaming off" and the like are used.
A figure that has struck me is to be found in a press release from the Department for Education dated 5 July. While we are spending £76 million on this wholly worthwhile scheme, we have put £50 million into our "successful technology schools initiative", of which I also approve.
The Minister says that the assisted places scheme provides parental choice, raises standards and extends opportunities. That is all true, but I would like a system that would not involve our subsidising the private schools. I would like a system like that in certain continental countries, where these things can be achieved in the places where the children actually live. That is my point about the Government's welcome technology schools initiative.
Ideally, we would not face the stark choice between comprehensivisation—86 per cent. of secondary schools are comprehensive—and the lifebelt of the assisted places scheme. That is a stark and artificial situation, and we have got ourselves into it through our mistaken educational philosophies over several decades, not including the last one.
We have to do what Wandsworth has done and fight our way out of that. We have to have "parental choice", "raising standards", "extending opportunities" in the locality, and that can be done only by providing a variety of different schools in one locality, with selection not by ability—let us put to one side the old-fashioned class debate—but by the method that they have in more sophisticated continental countries, by what the child shows that he has aptitude for.
There must be movement between schools—the system should not be set rock hard, because some children develop later than others. If the Government can find the money to expand not so much the assisted places scheme as the technology schools initiative, it is possible to foresee a time when, in many deprived, semi-deprived or just normal areas, there is a genuine choice for children, of all backgrounds, with different aptitudes. Children from deprived backgrounds may have an aptitude for academic, intellectual work. Some may have an aptitude for engineering. As we all know, that does not mean 19th-century engineering—it is a demanding business.
We can envisage different schools for those different children. There might also be a comprehensive school, and why not? There should be no dogmatism, no bar on having different types of school. If one is not a dogmatist, one cannot object in principle to having a comprehensive school. Why cannot there be three types of school?
I could go on for some time, but I would bore everyone if I did. However, I want to add one point about private schools. They have always worried me—not in themselves, because, despite what the hon. Member for Bridgend said, their methods are far more educationally sound than those
942
in many of the state schools—but because I dislike the social polarisation involved in the existence of private schools, which one sees in no other country to the same degree. It is a profoundly disturbing phenomenon. It continues, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, from generation to generation, which makes it even more profoundly disturbing.
One of the little thoughts that I should like to leave in the mind of my hon. Friend the Minister—
Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Walden: May I just finish this little thought before it slips my mind?
I am serious about the thought of buying out some private schools. We should never forget that there are some private schools that used to be direct grant schools—the equivalent of what we now call grant-maintained schools. They were forced by the activities of Labour Members or their predecessors into the private sector and are now closed to ordinary children.
I would like to see those schools, with all their traditions of excellence, come back into the state sector and be open to every child on a competitive basis, to go there without paying fees. Such a scheme would be the ultimate extension of the assisted places scheme, because everyone would have the chance to go to such schools.
Eton may not do that, but I have visited some former direct grant schools that would not be unattracted by the notion of selecting, free, from the brightest children, rather than having to take them from certain privileged and moneyed social classes, with a sprinkling of scholarships, as they do at present.
Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the pressures for the continuation of private schools is the extraordinary difficulty which many maintained schools appear to have in retaining single sex education? Many parents want single sex education, and, in the case of girls, there is clear evidence that single sex education yields better results.
Mr. Walden: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I do not want to consider sex, although I know that that is a problem. One of the difficulties in our way of thinking in this country—I mean no offence to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—is the tendency to go off at a tangent.
What I am trying to address, perhaps unsuccessfully, as it is very late at night, is a very central issue. I want diversification for everyone on the ground, locally, rather than the stark and artificial choice between being forced, nine times out of 10, to go to a comprehensive school, and being bailed out by the state in a wholly artificial and very expensive way to the tune of £76 million to give a child a chance in an almost certainly better and more demanding educational environment.
I believe that the whole process is artificial, and therefore fundamentally suspect. However, for the moment I can think of nothing better. Let us get on with the technology schools initiative. Where the money is to come from is a separate debate, although I have my ideas about that as well.
10.46 pm
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: It is an absolute disgrace that, at a time when most state schools are struggling to find enough resources to pay for teachers, equipment, books and for essential repairs and when there is a lack of nursery places, the Government continue to fund private education from public funds. They not only continue to subsidise private schools: they intend to increase that subsidy tonight.
When the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was an Education Minister, he said that the scheme was intended for able children from the poorest homes. Why he thought able children from the poorest homes would want to go to public schools beats me—[HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] No, they do not. If Conservative Members listen to me, they will see that they do not.
Even if the right hon. Member for Brent, North was very sincere—I do not dispute that he was—he was wrong. The scheme is exploited by the middle class. Evidence and statistics clearly show that 60 per cent. of the children who benefit from the scheme have parents who are lawyers, civil servants, clergymen, teachers or other white collar workers. Only 10 per cent. of assisted places pupils come from working class parents and have fathers who are manual workers.
That is typical of the Government, and it epitomises their political philosophy. They subsidise the better-off at the expense of the less well-off. If parents want to send their children to public schools, that is their choice, but they should not do so at the expense of the vast majority of pupils in the state sector.
Let me give examples of the subsidies offered to parents wishing to send their children to Durham school, the well-known public school in my constituency. The annual fees for Durham school in 1991–92 were £5,638. A family earning £25,000 a year with one child on the assisted places scheme attending that school would have received a subsidy of £1,531. If the family had two children attending the school, it would have received a subsidy of £5,114 from the taxpayer. If a family earning £19,000 a year sent one child to the school, it would have received a subsidy of £3,500 a year. Should it have sent two children to that school, it would have received a subsidy of £8,000 a year from the public purse.
That is reprehensible. The state should not pay private schools large subsidies at a time when the state sector is strapped for resources. It should not pay subsidies to the private sector at any time, regardless of whether resources are scarce or not. The assisted places scheme is a deliberate attempt to subsidise the private sector and keep it viable.
Whether the scheme is being used by the middle class, the working class or, for that matter, any other class is irrelevant. The fact that that scheme is available in the first place is appalling. Money is being hived off from the state sector into private education at the expense of the state sector. That is what the scheme is all about.
It is a scandal that, this year, £95 million will be spent on the scheme. In 1995–96, that expenditure will increase to £106 million. In comparison, this year, the Government intend to spend just £131 million on the school building grant to the maintained sector, and plan to spend just £107 million on that grant in 1995–96. The Government plan to
944
spend as much money on the private sector as they plan to spend on that building grant. That must be wrong and immoral.
I would not care, but the scheme does not even offer value for money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, it costs £400 a year more to educate a child in a private school than in the state sector. That difference is based on the figures provided by the Independent Schools Information Service, ISIS, which can hardly be regarded as an independent-minded organisation by any stretch of the imagination.
There is no evidence that children on the scheme do better in private schools than they would have done had they been educated in state schools. The evidence suggests the contrary. In 1991, the Audit Commission produced a report, "Two Bs or not", on the A-level performances in schools and colleges. It suggested that no single type of institution appeared consistently more effective than any other in terms of obtaining A-level results. It found, significantly, that private schools did marginally less well than the sixth forms and tertiary colleges of the state sector. It reported that pupils got better results in the state sector.
As the scheme produces no better results from the pupils who participate in it, and given that the scheme was not initially intended to assist pupils of a certain background, who account for the majority of its participants, one can only conclude that it is a device used by the Government to meet the increase in the private school fees. It is a subsidy to the private sector from the state purse.
I will conclude by quoting, once again, the right hon. Member for Brent, North.
Mr. James Pawsey: Hear, hear.
Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what that right hon. Gentleman said. He believed that the scheme had turned out to be a rescue for "distressed gentlefolk". He also suggested that it had taken the Tory party down a "side alley". I agree.
The Government have gone down a convenient side alley, because, through the scheme, they can subsidise private education. I suspect that that was always the intention.
10.54 pm
Mr. Don Foster: Unlike some hon. Members, I do not wish to flex ideological muscles against the independent sector. Some independent schools can make a valuable contribution to education.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said that he was not ashamed to refer to the speech that he made last year, and I feel exactly the same way. Last year, I said that I did not want to attack independent schools, and that some of them could contribute to education. In responding to the debate, the Under-Secretary of State accused me of trying to have it both ways, so my argument may not have been clear enough.
Considerable evidence proves that mutual benefit accrues from the independent and state sectors working together in certain areas. For instance, we are well aware that most trade unions and many professional education associations have joint membership from both sectors. The National Association for the Teaching of English, the

945
Association for Science Education and the Secondary Heads Association are just a few examples of organisations that are working to improve the quality of education for the nation's children. There are many examples of joint in-service activity and shared use of premises, and even some examples of joint teaching.
So co-operation to mutual advantage is possible, and Liberal Democrats are happy and willing to support it. However, we are not prepared to support measures that foster elitism in our society and prop up ailing independent schools to the disadvantage of pupils in the state sector. The assisted places scheme comes dangerously close on both counts.
Equally worrying is the fact that the assisted places scheme is not only badly managed but missing its target. Only 24 hours ago, the Government put VAT on domestic fuel to help pay off their £50 billion public sector debt, but today they do not seem concerned about wasting money on a scheme with little demonstrable benefit to taxpayers. Until recently, it was not even fully taken up. Furthermore, even the Minister will accept that the scheme was overspent by some £10 million.
Given that such straitened financial resources are available in state sector schools, how can we justify spending £8,595 of state money on sending pupils to Charterhouse school, for example? That money could have been far better directed towards hard-pressed state schools. It cannot be right that the assisted places scheme is being used to prop up some independent schools suffering from falling rolls due to the recession.
Notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in his lengthy intervention, the figures show that questions must be asked. Can it be right that a high percentage of pupils at a number of independent schools come through the assisted places scheme? For example, 39·9 per cent. of Batley grammar school's pupils, 37·3 per cent. of Denstone college's pupils, 38·5 per cent. of Hereford Cathedral school's pupils, 44·8 per cent. of St. Edward's college's pupils, and nearly 50 per cent. of Wisbech grammar school's pupils come through the scheme.
As the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, in a single year some seven schools received more than £1 million and more than 50 schools received some £500,000 of taxpayers' money through the assisted places scheme. Perhaps even worse, that money is being spent with no apparent reference to standards, quality or value.
We all know that our state schools are required to teach the national curriculum—I suspect that many of them would prefer not to have to do so, given its nature. Those schools are required to be regularly inspected by Ofsted and are expected to conform to the requirements of standard assessment tests for their children. None of those requirements applies to the independent sector schools, to which state money is given to support the pupils.
The Under-Secretary of State used the argument that we should not invest money into schools that do not conform to those three criteria—the national curriculum, Ofsted inspections and SATs—during the passage of the Education Bill. At that time he used that argument to show why money should not be given to Steiner schools. We are presented with the strange anomaly whereby the Under-Secretary today supports state money being put into independent schools that do not conform to those requirements.
946
In a similar debate last year I challenged the Under-Secretary to provide evidence to the House of value for money for the scheme and added value. On both counts, he was silent, except to tell us that the independent schools produced good examination results. Even he was honest enough to go on to say that one would expect that, given the selection procedures that are adopted by those schools.
Last year, I referred to views expressed by the Library of the House, whose officials had studied all the various research conducted into the success of the assisted places scheme in meeting its intended target of providing assisted places to bright children from less well-off backgrounds. At that time, the Library concluded:
"Much of the research on the operation of the scheme has suggested that it has failed in its prime aim of giving good education to children from relatively poor backgrounds and is mainly subsidising middle class parents."
That view was not challenged last year by the Minister. I hope that he will be prepared to do so now—or does he accept the view expressed by the Library?
We cannot support a scheme that is badly managed and misses its intended target. Therefore, we will vote against the provision tonight. In consultation with those in both sectors, the Liberal Democrats will continue to explore alternative approaches to co-operation between the sectors to mutual benefit.
11.3 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: I welcome any scheme that seeks to nourish academically able children from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, the problem with the assisted places scheme is that it is such an impoverished and ideologically driven way of thinking about the subject that it fails to achieve that objective. In many respects, it is the original opt-out approach—it provides a subsidy to leave the system, rather than taking serious action to improve the system for the target group identified.
As we have heard from both sides of the House, the scheme fails even on its own terms. It is an expensive failure. We know that it currently costs nearly £76 million, and the cost is soon to rise again. It is overspent. It has take-up problems. Last year there were 5,671 vacant assisted places. Contrary to the claims that used to be made, the scheme now costs more per pupil than the maintained system. Various figures have been offered but the most recent ones given in parliamentary answers show that each assisted place now costs £3,100, compared with £2,195 in the maintained secondary sector. Therefore, one of the traditional claims for this scheme does not apply by a mile.
We were told that the scheme is failing to meet its claimed target. Much of the money is a subsidy to the lower middle class. Speaking as a member of the lower middle class, I am not entirely against that, although I cannot understand why my taxes should be used for that purpose. In 1989, a study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council reported that:
"The scheme seems to have been yet another example of an educational reform targeted towards the working class but mainly benefiting children from middle-class backgrounds…Neither, in terms of the objectives that were originally defined for it or our own findings to date does there seem to be much scope or justification for extending it in its present form."

947
If hon. Members are unhappy with that finding, they should look at the Independent Schools Information Service survey that was commissioned from MORI last year. That survey found that 41 per cent. of children taking up assisted places came from lower middle-class families with only 16 per cent. coming from families of semi-skilled or unskilled workers.
The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has been cited with acclamation many times in this debate. His most profound point about the scheme is that, even in its own terms, it is failing because there is no evidence that the children taking up places are from not only the poorest families but the poorest schools. For the scheme to make any sort of sense, it would take the most able children from the most failing schools. It would then be doing something significant. As the right hon. Gentleman argued—this is clearly true—the scheme is probably taking children with the most motivated parents, who ensure that they secure the best schools in the neighbourhood for their children. Therefore, the scheme is failing on a fundamental ground.
The scheme is transferring large sums of public money from the Exchequer to private schools. I shall not explore that matter, as other hon. Members have done so. Here we have a scheme with expanding and—in some senses—uncontrollable costs. It has problems with take-up and is substantially missing its intended targets.
What should a sensible Government do when faced with such a scheme? The Government are desperate to cut public spending—they are imposing VAT on domestic fuel and targeting the social security budget. Yet in those circumstances, and faced with a scheme with those characteristics, they spend more on it. Because they are spending more on this scheme, they are necessarily spending less on everything else. They are certainly spending less on other things in the education system of which we have no trouble assembling a list.
In conclusion, we should let this ill-conceived scheme wither on the vine. Anyone who examined the scheme would say that that is the most sensible thing to do. Indeed, all those who have examined the scheme sensibly say that that is the most sensible thing to do.
We should do something else—we should rescue the kernel of an idea that has got lost as the scheme has developed. We should do all that we can to nourish the academically able, especially those from academically and financially disadvantaged backgrounds. That is an educational task. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said. In other words, there is a completely different educational agenda from that which the scheme represents.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest and finding some common ground with him. He said that he would like to do more for the academic child from a deprived or difficult background. He has not explained how he would do that, an omission that I hope he will remedy before he concludes. Having many years ago been governor of the Queen Elizabeth grammar school in Atherstone in north Warwickshire, I assure him that that wonderful school, before it was forced to go comprehensive, did precisely what he is now putting to the House.
Dr. Wright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. An obvious example is large classes. We have recently confirmed evidence that there is a direct correlation between reduced class sizes and increased academic performance. The figures show that under the Conservatives class sizes have increased substantially. If the Government's objective were increased academic achievement, they would have followed the strategy of reducing class sizes.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) gave an interesting example, but I prefer to close with an example of my own, which is about the numbers entering university. The figures are shocking, and I simply relay them to the House. In England and Wales, 30 per cent. of university entrants come from private fee-paying schools, despite the fact that only 7·5 per cent. of school-leavers come from such schools.
If the Government were serious about wishing to make higher education available to all who might benefit from it, especially those from deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds, they would regard that figure as shocking and would devote greater energy to opening up the higher education system to children from such backgrounds.
Sadly, the Government have not done that, but are instead pursuing schemes such as the one before the House tonight. That is why we say that their proposal is completely irrelevant to what is required. By transferring public money in the way they propose, they are simply sustaining, propping up and further developing a system of schooling which, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, has been one of the most damaging and divisive things to have happened to this country.
11.12 pm
Mr. Forth: Tempted though I am, I shall not indulge in a debate on the principle of the scheme because I should be called to order. As I said at the outset, this is a narrow debate on the regulations.
I had some difficulty understanding the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). My arithmetic suggests that if he took the total amount spent on this excellent scheme and spread it among all the pupils in the maintained sector, he might reach the total of about £13 per pupil. I am not sure what dramatic difference that would make to the quality and standard of education. I leave him to draw his own conclusion.
About 69 per cent. of pupils on the assisted places scheme come from the maintained schools sector, well exceeding the 60–40 rule that we set out for the scheme. That gives the lie to the facts that were claimed by Opposition Members, not least the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) who, in a rather pathetic parade of class-ridden prejudice of a kind that we have come to expect from him, completely ignored the facts.
For example, the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that 56 per cent. of parents whose children go on the assisted places scheme earned less than £12,000 last year, and that 38 per cent.—about two out of every five—earn less than £9,000 per annum. How they represent the elite he claimed were taking advantage of the scheme is beyond me. I should have thought that such people might even have qualified for his soubriquet of the working class or manual working people of whom he approves. I suggest that he looks again at the statistics to see whether his class profile might be suggested to the House in a different form.

949
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the scheme may not deliver quality. The achievements of assisted pupils in terms of GCSEs, A-levels and AS-levels are well above the national pass-grade result, and fully comparable with the achievements of the independent sector as a whole. All the evidence suggests that the achievements of pupils on the scheme compares very well with those of others—which contradicts what some Opposition Members have suggested.
Mr. Don Foster: Surely the Minister accepts that children selected according to ability are expected to do well in examinations. What he is telling us is no surprise; it is a repeat of what he said last year. Will he now tell us the evidence of added value from the scheme?
Mr. Forth: We are all repeating what we said last year. What mystifies me is why we have these debates annually, but if Opposition Members persist in coming to the House at this late hour and making the same speeches every year, I do not see why I should not do the same.
The fact is that all the evidence suggests that pupils whose parents put them forward for this excellent scheme fully vindicate not only the scheme and their parents' choice of education, but the schools that then enable them to achieve excellent results—results fully comparable with the results achieved by pupils in similar schools, and way beyond those of pupils generally and those educated in the maintained sector.
As for the accusations of elitism, I believe that they have been effectively disproved—not only by the income background that I described in response to the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, but by my points about the excellent level of achievement.
The brief but excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was very much in tune with the thrust of the policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, starting with the White Paper "Choice and Diversity", which was produced last year. Of course we believe that the technology schools are an exciting new development in education; I suggest that the emphasis on specialisation—that is probably the word that best sums up what my hon. Friend was talking about: drawing out young people's aptitudes, and providing them with diversity and choice in terms of different schools in their localities—must represent the way ahead. I trust that the Government are trying to encourage that approach, through our different policies in the Department and through some of the measures in the Education Bill, which will return to the House next week.
I believe that these narrow regulations build on a scheme that has been in place for some time.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I asked for clarification earlier on a point that strikes me as rather important. According to page 2 of the Department's report of its expenditure plans, the estimated outturn for the scheme in 1992–93 is £78 million. The 1993–94 plans involve expenditure of £95 million—an extra £17 million.
On page 16–where the Government show the figures for the number of places available—it is made clear that, for that extra £17 million, only 286 places will be available. That is equivalent to nearly £60,000 per place. What is the reason for the big increase in spending and the small increase in numbers?
Mr. Forth: I will give the hon. Gentleman an off-the-cuff reply and write to him in more detail subsequently.
I believe that the missing link is take-up. I must confess that, every year, we have been embarrassed by the fact that the scheme exceeds all our expectations. Year upon year, more people than even we anticipated take up their places in the scheme, and we then find that we have to provide yet more money, which we gladly do every year. But it is an annual embarrassment to which I am very happy to confess. That is probably the reason for the gap that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to understand.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I certainly would appreciate a full answer, because I am not entirely convinced by that. In table 10, giving the number of places available, it is pointed out that at the moment the new places being made available are almost all being taken up. Last year, 97·6 per cent. were taken up. So there is not much room for a greater take-up. I appreciate that higher up there are some big gaps, but surely that cannot be the answer.
Mr. Forth: I believe that this is the answer. What certainly is not the case is that we are providing places at £60,000 each. Even some of the more exotic schools mentioned by hon. Gentlemen do not quite reach that fee level. It is most unlikely, to say the least, that the Department is funding places to the tune of £60,000 per place.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a very full explanation of this, because it seems that we are unable at this stage to agree.
I hope that I have persuaded the House—
Mr. Steinberg: The Minister accused me of being class-prejudiced, and perhaps I am. When I look at the other side of the House, that makes me class-prejudiced. The statistics that I gave him had not been produced by me; they were produced by the ISIS MORI poll, which said that 60 per cent. of the children came from middle-class homes, including Lloyd's, the civil service, and so on. So is the Isis MORI poll class-prejudiced as well?
Mr. Forth: I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman should disapprove of teachers and civil servants; that is beyond me and is for him to explain on some other occasion. From the facts that I gave—these are the more relevant ones, I believe—over half the parents of children in assisted places scheme places have incomes of less than £12,000 per annum.
I will not follow the hon. Gentleman's obsession with what their occupations are. I am much more interested in the fact that the scheme is doing what it was set up to do—that is, helping those on low incomes to get their children into good schools.
Mr. Derek Enright: I would like to know the source of the Minister's information, quite simply.
Mr. Forth: The source of my information is the underpaid and overworked civil servants in my Department.
I hope that in this short debate I have been able to persuade the House that we should approve these excellent regulations, which update this excellent scheme, from which so many of our children benefit.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 177.

Division No. 332]

[11.22 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Evennett, David

Aitken, Jonathan

Faber, David

Alexander, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Amess, David

Fishburn, Dudley

Ancram, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Ashby, David

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

French, Douglas

Atkins, Robert

Gallic Phil

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Gardiner, Sir George

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gill, Christopher

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Gillan, Cheryl

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Baldry, Tony

Gorst, John

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bates, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Batiste, Spencer

Grylls, Sir Michael

Beggs, Roy

Hague, William

Bellingham, Henry

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bendall, Vivian

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hargreaves, Andrew

Boswell, Tim

Haselhurst, Alan

Bowden, Andrew

Hawkins, Nick

Bowis, John

Hawksley, Warren

Brandreth, Gyles

Hayes, Jerry

Brazier, Julian

Heald, Oliver

Bright, Graham

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hendry, Charles

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Budgen, Nicholas

Horam, John

Burns, Simon

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Burt, Alistair

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

Butler, Peter

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carrington, Matthew

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Carttiss, Michael

Jack, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Clappison, James

Jenkin, Bernard

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Jessel, Toby

Clitton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Coe, Sebastian

Key, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Kilfedder, Sir James

Congdon, David

King, Rt Hon Tom

Conway, Derek

Kirkhope, Timothy

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Knapman, Roger

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Couchman, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Cran, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

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

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Legg, Barry

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Lidington, David

Day, Stephen

Lightbown, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Devlin, Tim

Lord, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Luff, Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Dover, Den

MacKay, Andrew

Duncan, Alan

McLoughlin, Patrick

Duncan-Smith, Iain

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Durant, Sir Anthony

Maitland, Lady Olga

Dykes, Hugh

Malone, Gerald

Eggar, Tim

Mans, Keith

Elletson, Harold

Marlow, Tony

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

952

Merchant, Piers

Spink, Dr Robert

Mills, Iain

Spring, Richard

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Sproat, Iain

Moate, Sir Roger

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Steen, Anthony

Moss, Malcolm

Stephen, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Stern, Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Stewart, Allan

Nicholls, Patrick

Sweeney, Walter

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Sykes, John

Norris, Steve

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Thomason, Roy

Ottaway, Richard

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Page, Richard

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Paice, James

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Patnick, Irvine

Thurnham, Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pawsey, James

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

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tredinnick, David

Pickles, Eric

Trend, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Walden, George

Powell, William (Corby)

Waller, Gary

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Ward, John

Richards, Rod

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Riddick, Graham

Waterson, Nigel

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Watts, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wells, Bowen

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Whitney, Ray

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Whittingdale, John

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Widdecombe, Ann

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Wilkinson, John

Sackville, Tom

Willetts, David

Shaw, David (Dover)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f Id)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Yeo, Tim

Sims, Roger

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Speed, Sir Keith

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spencer, Sir Derek

Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Adams, Mrs Irene

Coffey, Ann

Ainger, Nick

Connarty, Michael

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Armstrong, Hilary

Corston, Ms Jean

Ashton, Joe

Cox, Tom

Austin-Walker, John

Cryer, Bob

Barnes, Harry

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Battle, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Darling, Alistair

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davidson, Ian

Benton, Joe

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Berry, Dr. Roger

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Betts, Clive

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

Boyce, Jimmy

Dewar, Donald

Bradley, Keith

Dixon, Don

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dobson, Frank

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Donohoe, Brian H.

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

Dowd, Jim

Byers, Stephen

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Caborn, Richard

Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth

Callaghan, Jim

Eagle, Ms Angela

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Eastham, Ken

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Enright, Derek

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Etherington, Bill

Cann, Jamie

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Fisher, Mark

Clapham, Michael

Flynn, Paul

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Clelland, David

Foulkes, George

953

Fyfe, Maria

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Galloway, George

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gapes, Mike

Mullin, Chris

George, Bruce

Murphy, Paul

Gerrard, Neil

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Golding, Mrs Llin

O'Hara, Edward

Gordon, Mildred

Olner, William

Graham, Thomas

O'Neill, Martin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Patchett, Terry

Gunnell, John

Pickthall, Colin

Hall, Mike

Pike, Peter L

Hanson, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hardy, Peter

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Heppell, John

Prescott, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Purchase, Ken

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Home Robertson John

Raynsford, Nick

Hoon, Geoffrey

Reid, Dr John

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Rendel, David

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rooker, Jeff

Illsley, Eric

Rooney, Terry

Ingram, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Short, Clare

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Simpson, Alan

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

Jowell, Tessa

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Spearing, Nigel

Kilfoyle, Peter

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

Steinberg, Gerry

Leighton, Ron

Stevenson, George

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Strang, Dr Gavin

Loyden, Eddie

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

McAllion, John

Turner, Dennis

McAvoy, Thomas

Tyler, Paul

McCartney, Ian

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Macdonald, Calum

Wareing, Robert N

McKelvey, William

Watson, Mike

McLeish, Henry

Wicks, Malcolm

McMaster, Gordon

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Madden, Max

Wilson, Brian

Mahon, Alice

Winnick, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Wise, Audrey

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Worthington, Tony

Martlew, Eric

Wray, Jimmy

Meale, Alan

Wright, Dr Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Milburn, Alan

Miller, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

Company Accounts
11.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move, That the draft Partnerships and Unlimited Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.
Accounting requirements for companies in the European Community have been harmonised, principally through the fourth and seventh company law directives, but there was concern that companies in some member states were avoiding the disclosure requirements of those directives by conducting business through the equivalent of partnerships. The Council therefore adopted the partnerships directive to bring partnerships between limited companies and unlimited companies owned by limited ones within the scope of the accounting directives, requiring them to produce and publish accounts.
In Great Britain the directive and thus these regulations apply to partnerships, limited partnerships and unlimited companies where all the members with unlimited liability are themselves limited companies. For a limited partnership it is the nature of the general partner or partners only—the ones with unlimited liability—that matters.
To be within the scope of the regulations the general partner or partners must be limited companies. The regulations will not apply to most partnerships in Great Britain, such as those between accountants, solicitors and small traders, where one or more of the partners is a natural person, not a company. Partnerships between limited companies, or where the general partners are limited companies, are not thought to be particularly common in Great Britain. In fact, they amount to only about 3,500 out of 600,000.
We consulted business and others on the line to be taken in the negotiation of the directive. The conclusion of that consultation was that partnerships between companies, or where the general partner is a company, were not being used as a vehicle to avoid disclosure, the problem with which the directive seeks to deal. Our negotiators strove, therefore, to achieve sufficient options in the directive to ensure that existing practice in Great Britain could continue to be followed as far as possible.
It is important for those dealing with a partnership or unlimited company to know that its members or general partners are limited companies. The liability of members or general partners is unlimited, but, if they are limited companies and the debts of the partnership force them into liquidation, the creditors of the partnership would become unsecured creditors of the company up to the limits of the capital of the company. It is equally important for those dealing with and investing in a company to know that it has exposure to unlimited liability through partnerships and unlimited companies.
The regulations provide three ways in which accounting information about the partnership can be handled, depending on the circumstances. There are also provisions that apply to all companies and partnerships which are within the scope of the regulations, no matter which accounting treatment is used. The members of a partnership must give inquirers the name of at least one company member that has included the partnership in its accounts, or the names of all the company members that

955
are publishing its accounts. Companies which are involved in partnerships or unlimited companies within the scope of these regulations must reveal their names and addresses and legal forms. The companies must also state in their accounts where the accounting information about the partnership is to be found.
The directive, when implemented in all member states, will require all companies incorporated in the Community to give such information about the partnerships and unlimited companies within its scope of which they are members. That will help companies in Britain to find out more about the companies that they are dealing with in other member states.
If the partnership is included in consolidated accounts by at least one of its partners, there will be no further requirement to draw up and publish accounts. The member companies must state in their accounts whether they have consolidated the partnership or whether another company has done so. In the latter case, the name of the other company must be given in the accounts.
Our aim has been to provide information for those dealing with the partnership and the company, while keeping the burdens to a minimum. My Department consulted last year on the method of implementation, and the approach that we have taken in these regulations was welcomed by the organisations that responded. We have estimated that the compliance costs will be low. A compliance cost assessment has been prepared and is available.
To give companies and partnerships the maximum time to adapt to the requirements, the directive permits member states not to apply its provisions to financial years commencing before 1 January 1995. The regulations would take advantage of this.
As I have explained, throughout the process of negotiation of the directive, and the consultation and drafting of these regulations, there has been no evidence that the problem with which the directive seeks to deal—the lack of disclosure of accounting information by partnerships between companies—is a problem in Britain. We therefore sought, and were successful in negotiating, options that would permit us to leave existing provisions largely intact. The regulations implement the directive in a most light-handed way.
I commend the regulations to the House.
11.39 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for taking us rapidly through the regulations. There is usually a 10-minute speech arranged for these occasions, but I am aware of the quorum hovering in the Chamber at this hour. Therefore, I will not seek to delay the House unduly.
These regulations implement a Council directive dealing with annual accounts and consolidated accounts. They confirm again, if confirmation is necessary, that we are within the European framework, that we have been in a European framework for some 20 years now, and that we are developing that framework along lines of which even the noble Lady Thatcher would approve. We are creating harmonious conditions throughout the length and breadth of Europe so that company law and accountancy law are the same in all European countries.
956
Regulations such as these create a level playing field that companies will come to know and understand. The time may come when we will be debating a European company which is trans-national and which will incorporate the whole of our European company law. Indeed, such a law has been debated for the past 20 years, but it has yet to make its way on to the statute book. Perhaps with debates and regulations such as these we shall be able, little by little, to creep towards it.
The scope of the application of the regulations concerns partnerships, limited partnerships and unlimited companies, all of whose members, having unlimited liability, are limited companies. That may seem like gobbledegook to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the cogniscenti, it means that there is a difference in liability for partnerships and unlimited companies when compared to those that have limited their liability by incorporating themselves into limited liability companies.
There is a significant difference in the treatment of trading companies and partnerships not limited by liability and those which are. We shall debate that difference in greater detail and whether they should be subject to audit when we have the Minister's proposals for small businesses. It will be the Opposition's submission at that time that limited liability companies that do not wish to submit themselves to an audit should disincorporate themselves—take unlimited liability—with all its attendant risks, while leaving limited liability companies properly audited in the interests of full disclosure and in the interests of work force, bankers and outside parties, which may be shareholders. That is also for another debate, but it might be as well to put down a marker for the Minister's attention.
As I understand it—I am grateful to the Minister for explaining this to me—there are occasions, principally in Germany, where partnerships gather together from limited liability companies. Those dealing with such partnerships may do so on the basis that there is unlimited liability upon the partnership. As the Minister said, that is not often the case in our country, and it is not likely that such situations will arise, or, if they do, it will not be very often. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that there should be a common framework throughout the Community so that those dealing with such partnerships will know where they stand and will act accordingly.
As we read Sir Andrew Large's critique of our self-regulation organisations—acting within his Securities and Investment Board—it is being drummed into us that the principles of caveat emptor can never be removed from financial investment. There will always be an element of risk. Regulations such as these, bringing in their wake full disclosure, will provide the information for the investor to take into account when he takes his investment decisions and risks his money.
Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman is an expert in French law and has practised at the French Bar. Can he tell us, with regard to partnerships, whether the same rules or uberrima fides-the utmost good faith—apply in other European countries as they do in Great Britain?
Mr. Bell: They certainly do. As I said earlier, one of the reasons for this directive is that it will cover the whole of

957
Europe so that the principles and concepts to which the hon. Gentleman referred conform with what we are debating and what we have in our country.
The Minister said that compliance would not be costly. It would be nice to look on the measure as constituting a mini securities and exchange commission, with its imposition of criminal penalties for failure to comply with the regulations. But of course such penalties already exist within the framework of the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Companies Act 1989. Still, it is nice to see the extension of criminal penalties for failure to comply with financial regulations, which edges us further towards the sort of statutory regulation which no doubt we will debate on the Floor of the House and towards which, if I have read Sir Andrew Large's report aright, even the Government are edging.
I promised the Minister not to have too long a saunter around the paddock of regulation and self-regulation, independent or statutory, and I hope that I have not done so. One of the difficulties of opening debates such as this one is that I cannot respond to any speech that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) may make later. If he does make one, I shall listen to it with great interest. If he does not, I remind him that the best speeches can be kept for another occasion.
I assure the serried ranks of Conservative Members who are waiting to go home that none of my hon. Friends is loitering in the Corridors waiting to cast a vote or to press the button that will ring the Division bell. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and patience in explaining these technical but important regulations to the House. The attendance may have been a bit thin, but I assure him that his comments—and mine, I hope—will read well in Hansard tomorrow.
Mr. Neil Hamilton:With the leave of the House, I will not reply to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Partnerships and Unlimited Companies (Accounts) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.

ESTIMATES
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131 (Liaison Committee),
That this House agrees with the Report [8th July] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Wood.]
Question agreed to.

Charities (Collections)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
11.46 pm
Sir Jim Spicer: We were treated to a remarkable degree of brevity in the last debate, and I too will take only a few minutes. My purpose is not to raise any major issue but to fire a warning shot across the Minister's bows.
We have a remarkable tradition of charitable giving, which no other country in the world can equal or surpass. Part of that tradition is that we give freely, but over the years more and more charities have asked for our support, so it is quite right that we should impose certain controls on them, particularly when it comes to door-to-door collections.
In 1939, the House to House Collections Act was passed. It was adequate then, but given the number of charities today it is no longer so. Since 1939 there has been an explosion, not only in the number of charities, but in the energy and time that they devote to fund raising and door-to-door and street collections. It is therefore crucial that good controls should be exercised by authorities close to the areas where the collecting is to be done.
At first sight—certainly to a newcomer to the subject like me—local control by the district council seems the answer. That brings me to the reason why I asked for this debate.
We are raising money for a local hospice. For an area like west, south and north Dorset to raise £3·4 million in just over two years is quite an achievement. We have a target of £5 million, and I hope and expect that, by the end of next year, we shall have raised that money and the hospice will be opened. We were all—particularly my wife—delighted when we were granted a licence for one week for the whole of west Dorset to raise funds for our local hospice.
An immediate operation was set in train, which involved the distribution of some 200 to 300 tins, with all the paraphernalia—badges and other things—that go along with such an operation to ensure that we would raise the maximum amount. Every town, village and hamlet in west Dorset was covered, and people were prepared to go out to raise the money. I am always an optimist, and I thought that we would raise about £20,000 to add to the £3·4 million. In fact, we raised just half that sum.
Why did we not get anywhere near that target, when everyone locally supports the hospice project and wants to see it open? Before we started the week allocated to us, people began to phone in and say that, although they would like to help, sadly, they did not think that they could, because other charities were to be collecting that week. As the week progressed, more and more people phoned in and asked what was going on. It was nonsense, they said. They thought that they had the total licence and nobody would be in competition, but moving down the street at the same time as they were trying to collect were at least four other charities—Barnardos, the Diabetic Association, Action Aid and the Alexandra Rose. All those four charities were actively collecting, on the basis that they had exemption from registering because they were large, national charities.
That is our problem, and we were saddened by what had happened to Joseph Weld house. On Monday

959
morning, I received a letter from Mr. Wilson, who is the divisional superintendent of our local St. John Ambulance. He said:
"I would like to make a formal, written complaint with regard to the fund-raising collection which took place in Dorchester and District between 25th June and 3rd July, 1993.
As I am the Superintendent of the Dorchester Combined Division of St. John Ambulance, I feel partly responsible for the situation as members of the public, understandably, felt aggrieved at what appeared to be constant requests for money. Some of my members received a very poor, even hostile, reception when selling flags.
As you know, our organisation is entirely voluntary and we are allocated one week each year for our Flag Day and House to House collections. Normally this is well supported, but this year we fell some £300 below our anticipated total. I believe that this is almost entirely due to the Dr. Barnardo's collection being held during the same week.
My main point is: why should we suffer these losses when we rely on the funds raised at this time? We are required to register well in advance and try to avoid competing with other Charities. Other organisations, however, are not required to register and can therefore collect at any time.
I should be grateful if you would raise my concerns with the appropriate authorities."
That rather indignant letter joins the indignant protests of my wife as the organiser of our fund-raising activity during that week.
However, it is a fact—I am quite certain that the Minister will bear witness to this—that things are going to change. Therefore, as I said at the beginning, all I intend to do is fire a shot across my hon. Friend's bows and say that the present situation cannot be allowed to continue.
My aim tonight is to highlight the present unsatisfactory situation that puts smaller and particularly local charities at a disadvantage and to seek from my hon. Friend an absolute assurance not only that, under the Charities Act 1992, there will be a tightening up, but that all charities will be required to register with local authorities and that small, but local, charities, will have their absolutely fair share of time.
I am president of my local British Legion. It would be inconceivable to me that, during that week, we should not devote all our thoughts and attention to the poppy day appeal. However, it seems that at least 50 per cent. of the year should be devoted to local charities. Otherwise, the 50 or so charities that have exemption at present can run roughshod over our local activity, push us to the wall and make our fund-raising insignificant.
That should not be allowed to happen. All I seek tonight is an assurance from my hon. Friend that we will see a change by early 1994, that more control will be vested locally, and that the national charities will not be given the free rein that they have at the moment.
11.56 am
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on securing this debate. The fact that we are here at this comparatively late hour attests to the importance that he rightly attaches to the issue.
Before I address the particular matter of his concern and what he called his warning shot, I should say that I am pleased that he drew my attention and that of the House to the excellent work of the Dorset respite and hospice trust in his constituency. I share the public's admiration
960
for those who care so compassionately for the terminally ill and give vital emotional support to their friends and relatives. That work requires great sensitivity and devotion; I pay tribute to what they are doing and applaud their extremely impressive efforts, which my hon. Friend described, to raise new funds to extend their work further.
As my hon. Friend explained so clearly, the very business of fund raising has brought him to this debate tonight. He described how the hospice's dedicated fund raisers, not least his wife, had planned their house-to-house collection and notified that to the local authority, and were then unhappy to find that other large national charities were also making house-to-house collections that evening.
I can understand those people feeling that they were all treading on each other's toes, and that their hospice cannot but have raised less than it would have done if the collectors had had a clear run on their own. I can also understand why my hon. Friend feels that there should be effective rules to avoid such an overlap. However, as he said, there are a large number of charities in England and Wales. More than 160,000 charities are registered with the Charity Commission. A good number of them are very small, many are confined to one area and some are very large indeed.
Altogether, the income of all charities in England and Wales has been estimated at perhaps £18 billion a year. While public charitable collections are only one source of that income, the net effect is that there is considerable pressure and, indeed, competition for the public's generosity.
The first main point that I must make in reply to my hon. Friend is that no one charity could, in all reasonableness, expect to have a monopoly on charitable appeals at any one time, even briefly and locally, unless other charities were correspondingly to be prevented from fund raising.
Even if public charitable collections were to be given over—briefly and locally—to a single charity, others would be free to compete in the same area and at the same time through other means of fund raising, such as direct mail, newspaper appeals and telephone fund raising.
Considerable overlap is, I fear, inevitable, and something that we must accept. My hon. Friend suggested that house-to-house collections by the larger charities should be confined to one half of the year only, but that would restrict those that have currently secured eligibility for an exemption order, issued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
The law currently regulates collections under the House to House Collections Act 1939 and, in relation to street collections, the Police, Factories, etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916. Only the 1939 Act provides for large national house-to-house collections to be granted an exemption order, removing them from local control. No equivalent provision exists in the 1916 Act, so permission for street collections—the familiar member of the public with the collecting can in the town centre on a Saturday—must always be applied for from each local authority.
Larger charities granted exemption orders by my Department for house-to-house collections are asked to notify local authorities in whose area they intend to collect. From time to time, they are reminded of the need to do so. Conversely, West Dorset district council and other local authorities, as a matter of good practice, point out to local charities that exemption-order-holding

961
charities may collect in the same area, and that those local charities cannot be guaranteed a monopoly. It may be constructive for those directly concerned to contact one another in order to co-ordinate their collections and minimise overlap.
I do not know what happened in the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred; certainly things did not appear to go as well as they might have done. I agree with him that it is anomalous that street and house-to-house collections for very similar purposes are controlled through separate primary legislation. That was remarked on by the efficiency scrutiny of the supervision of charities, chaired by Sir Philip Woodfield, in 1987. The proposal implemented through the Charities Act 1992 was to bring both types of collection together under more consistent legislation. In the 1992 Act, that type of joint activity is covered by the term "public charitable collection".
We are currently examining, as my hon. Friend accepted, how the new provisions can best be brought into force. We intend to complete that process by the end of next year. We must take into account many practical angles, such as the co-ordination of different collections between competing charities, including between permission to collect that is granted centrally under 1992 Act, from the Charity Commission, and that granted locally by district authorities.
I cannot promise my hon. Friend that any one type of charity or issuing authority will necessarily take precedence over another, but I agree that the issue should
962
be thoroughly examined before a decision is made on what seems best. This debate represents a timely and constructive contribution to that examination and my hon. Friend's proposal, which, in effect, is for some form of rationing, is one of the possible new arrangements that we will consider.
Close consultation with various people and organisations that have first-hand knowledge is indispensable. Our intention to discuss new arrangements for public charitable collections with experienced practitioners follows similar initiatives that we have already taken in relation to the provisions of the 1992 Act dealing with charity accounts and the control of professional fund raising.
We are making good progress in implementing the new legislation, and this week we are issuing a consultation document on the control of professional fund raising. That has undoubtedly been strengthened with the benefit of practitioners' views.
My hon. Friend's suggestions and the particular experience of the Dorset respite and hospice trust will help to ensure that the forthcoming regulations under the appropriate provisions of the 1992 Act will be constructed wisely and effectively. I hope that they will do much to avoid the type of situation that my hon. Friend has rightly drawn to the attention of the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.

HEALTH

  Hospital Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To answer the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 177 if she will make a statement outlining the existing advocacy role of hospital doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The hospital doctor's role is to provide effective health care for each of the patients entrusted to his or her care taking account of available resources.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information is available to her Department about the numbers and circumstances of children who are indirectly affected by HIV and AIDS because their parents or carers are infected with the virus; and what assessment her Department has made of the extent of support likely to be required for the children if they cannot be cared for by their parent or parents;

  (2) what guidance she has issued as to the information on which social services departments should base their plans for the support or provision of care for children who are indirectly affected by HIV or AIDS because of the illness of their parents or carers.

  Mr. Sackville
  So far as numbers of children indirectly affected by HIV are concerned, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 July 1993, at column 378.

  The Children Act 1989 and the guidance and regulations associated with it set out local authorities' duties towards children in need. For services for children both infected and affected by HIV or AIDS this is supplemented by "Children and HIV" which gives detailed guidance to local authorities to assist them in planning and providing services. The guidance encourages HIV awareness amongst service providers, and describes good practice.

  The Children Act and associated guidance and regulations provide a policy framework through which local authorities, in collaboration with other agencies, can develop comprehensive plans for all children in need in their locality.

  Copies of these documents will be placed in the Library.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of emergency admissions to hospitals in each health authority in England in 1990–91.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information from the hospital episodes statistics is not yet available. The collection of the management information on non-elective admissions in the general and acute specialties given in my reply to the hon. Member on 28 June at col.352, did not begin until April 1991.
  406

  GP Fund Holders
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will review the procedure where general practitioner fund holders extend their role by undertaking services such as physiotherapy currently provided by community hospitals so that these services are not put in jeopardy for the majority of service users leading to a knock on adverse effect on the other services provided at the local hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders, like district health authorities, are responsible for obtaining high quality health care for their patients in the most effective way. The challenge for provider units is to develop services which meet the needs of purchasers and patients.

  Census, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what supplementary inquiries and research and other work was carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to supplement the census return in Lambeth and to obtain additional information about numbers and details of persons whose details ought to appear as part of the census.

  Mr. Sackville
  Census enumerators had the task of locating, contacting, and delivering census forms to all households and communal establishments in their areas. Census statistics have been derived principally from the completed forms. Where enumerators located households they believed to be present on census night, but were not able to contact people in them, the numbers and details of the people and households concerned have been estimated and included in the census statistics. Households identified by enumerators as absent on census night were asked to fill in a census form voluntarily on their return. For those who did not complete a form, numbers and details have been estimated and included in the census statistics.

  A census validation survey was carried out shortly after the census to check on its quality and coverage. This survey compared information given on census forms with that obtained by experienced interviewers who re-visited a sample of addresses. The sample was not large enough, however, to provide information directly about individual authorities. A report on the survey's findings on coverage will be published later this year.

  In preparing the Registrar General's mid-1991 population estimates, allowances were made for under-enumeration in the census, using results from the census validation survey and all other relevant sources. For individual local authorities these adjustments are inevitably less precise than at the national level.

  Dental Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to issue clear advice to people requiring dental treatment of their entitlement to free treatment under the NHS; if she will instruct family health services authorities to provide up-to-date information about the dental services available locally; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under their terms of service, dentists are required to display prominently at their practices a
  407
  notice supplied by the family health services authority—FHSA—indicating entitlement to exemption from and remission of national health service dental charges. Leaflets are available from family doctors and dentists and Benefits Agency offices explaining NHS dental treatment and how people may be entitled to free treatment or help with the cost. Copies of these leaflets will be placed in the Library.

  FHSAs are responsible for maintaining up-to-date lists of the dentists providing NHS treatment in their localities. The list contains information about the days and hours the dentist is available at the practice, as well as the services offered.

  Smoking
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by whom the review, proposed in The "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, of the possible legal control of the use of additives and emission of toxic substances from cigarettes was instituted; who is conducting the review; and which organisations and individuals have been invited to submit their views.

  Mr. Sackville
  The review will be established in due course.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards achieving the targets for reducing smoking prevalence to 20 per cent. of adults by 2000, and by 33 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds by 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  The results of the biennial survey of adult smoking in 1990 gave levels of 31 per cent. for men and 29 per cent. for women and these were taken as the base for "The Health of the Nation" target. The results of the 1992 survey are not yet available.

  The base figure for children's smoking—8 per cent.—is that reported in the 1988 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys biennial survey of smoking among secondary schoolchildren. The 1990 survey showed a level of 10 per cent. but the general trend will not be known until the results of the 1992 survey are available late this year.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the expected reduction in the consumption of cigarettes as a result of the increase in excise duty announced in the Chancellor's last Budget; and what would be the expected aggregated reduction in consumption were the same increase in real terms to be repeated at each successive Budget up to and including 2000.

  Mr. Sackville
  The consumption of cigarettes would be expected to reduce by between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. as a result of the March 1993 Budget increase in tobacco taxation, assuming no change in other factors. The aggregated reduction in consumption if the same increase were repeated in each Budget up to and including the year 2000 would be expected to be in the range 9 per cent. to 18 per cent.

  Health Care Plans
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue guidelines to require that draft health care commissioning plans on which consultation with 408
  community health councils are held include (a) the present state of the service, (b) the proposed changes and (c) the effect of the proposed changes on the existing service and to require that all plans should be in plain English and in other languages where appropriate; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Current guidance, EL(93)10, a copy of which is available in the Library, already requires health authorities to undertake formal consultation when local health services are under review and it is recommended that they should ensure that black, Asian and other minority groups are enabled to play a full part in that process.

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for collecting gender-specific information about use of mental health services for her review of information requirements in mental health services.

  Mr. Bowis
  Data collected on the use of services include information by gender when appropriate.

  Contraceptives
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has a proposed timetable for the extension of the limited list to include contraceptives.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Advisory Committee on National Health Service Drugs has started to look at contraceptives and will be approaching manufacturers for information about individual products. We expect that they will complete this review by the end of this year.

  Cosmetic Treatment
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the annual cost to the health service of (1) cosmetic treatment and surgery and (2) operations to remove tattoos; and how much is received from patients towards the cost of such treatments and surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Community Care
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has any plans to revise the guidelines given to local authority social services departments concerning the escalation of unmet need resulting from the implementation of community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  No such guidlines have been issued.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve consultation between her Department and the pharmaceutical industry.

  Mr. Sackville
  We established earlier this year a pharmaceutical industry strategy working group consisting of representatives of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) and senior officials from
  409
  the Department of Health, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry with the terms of reference:
  "To consider jointly the future development of the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, its contribution to the UK economy and its role in the provision of health care; and in particular to consider issues of common interest such as the provision of affordable health care and the encouragement of a strong pharmaceutical industry."

  In addition, officials consult regularly with the ABM and individual companies on specific issues of mutual interest.

  Female GPs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated percentage of female patients who have access to a female general practitioner; and what percentage of general practitioner partnerships have a female general practitioner.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 April 1992—the latest date for which the figures are available—approximately 68 per cent. of female patients in England were registered with general practitioners in partnerships which included a female general practitioner; 53 per cent. of general practitioner partnerships had at least one female partner.

  Child Migrants Trust
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) of 26 April,Official Report, column 278, if Her Majesty's Government will now make it their policy to provide additional funding for the Child Migrants Trust; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Funds for the year 1993–94 are fully allocated and include a grant for the Child Migrants Trust. Decisions about funding for future years will be taken when the Department knows what resources are available and what the competing demands for funds are.

  Paediatric Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the units that provide training for paediatric nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Health Education Authority
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how she intends to secure the continued value and effectiveness of the Health Education Authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The White Paper "The Health of the Nation"—Cm 1986—makes clear the important part to be played by the Health Education Authority (HEA) in achieving the targets for improvements in people's health set in that health strategy. It also emphasises that, complementing the HEA's national role, health authorities throughout England have a key responsibility for health promotion among their local populations. Last December, we approved the HEA's strategy for 1993 to 1998 to carry forward its role in "The Health of the Nation", which includes closer co-ordination with health authorities and other local agencies.
  410
  To help achieve these aims, and to ensure the continued effectiveness of the HEA, we have decided—with the agreement of its chairman, Sir Donald Maitland—to carry out a review with the following terms of reference:
  "To consider the future role, responsibilities and functioning of the Health Education Authority, taking account of developments since it was established in 1987, notably:

  the new structure of the NHS;

  the 1992 White Paper "The Health of the Nation" and its programme for a long term health strategy;

  the development of Government policy on market testing and contracting out;

  the need for cost-effectiveness;

  and to report to the Secretary of State for Health."

  The review team will be led by Mr. John Lee—chairman, The Christie NHS Trust, Manchester and formerly a Minister in the Department of Employment.

  The other members will be:

  Mrs. Terry Banks—former director of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys;

  Mr. Tonic Gibson—former newspaper editor and chairman of the Peterborough district health authority 1982 to 1992;

  Dr. Bob Haward—regional director of public health, Yorkshire regional health authority.

  We expect the review to be completed in November.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to protect from closure small pharmacies in rural and suburban areas which deal with many fewer than 2,000 prescriptions per month.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Discussions are continuing with the pharmacists' representatives about how best to restructure fees to encourage better services for patients and improve value for money. In these discussions we have made it clear that we remain committed to ensuring that patients in rural and suburban areas continue to enjoy reasonable access to a local pharmacy.

  Homicides
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many homicides involved(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms in each year since 1979; and how many involved people under 16 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 7 July 1993]: The information relating to registered deaths is shown in table 1.

  For further information, the Coroners (Amendment) Rules 1977 now allow for death registration in cases where an inquest is adjourned because a person has been charged with an offence in connection with the death; these cases are known as accelerated registrations. The correct external cause of injury, for example, "Assault by firearms and explosives" cannot, however, except in those cases relating to transport accidents, be determined until any criminal proceedings are concluded. Consequently, all non-transport accelerated registrations are assigned to the external cause of injury code E988.8—injury by other specified means, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted—until results of proceedings are known and the death can be reassigned to the correct external cause code—E code.

  Homicides are one of the categories most affected by this legislation. Accordingly, for each of the years 1979–92 there are a number of deaths that are the result of the use

  411
  of a firearm but which as a consequence of the rules do not appear in table 1. Table 2 shows the number of deaths assigned—at the outcome of criminal proceedings—to a broad group of causes which includes "Assault by firearms and explosives". It is not, however, possible to specifically

  Table 1

  Numbers of registered deaths from homicides involving firearms (ICD E965) in England and Wales, 1979 to 1992

  Year

  Shotgun

  Handguns

  Hunting rifle

  Military firearm

  Other firearm

  Total excluding shotguns

  Total including shotguns

  (E965·1)

  (E965·0)

  (E965·2)

  (E965·3)

  (E965·4)

  All ages

  under 16s

  All ages

  under 16s

  All ages

  under 16s

  All ages

  under 16s

  All ages

  under 16s

  All ages

  under 16s

  All ages

  under 16s

  1979

  19

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  18

  3

  18

  3

  37

  5

  1980

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  0

  13

  0

  19

  0

  1981

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  5

  0

  10

  0

  13

  0

  1982

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  2

  16

  2

  26

  2

  1983

  21

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1

  13

  1

  34

  3

  1984

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  4

  31

  4

  43

  4

  1985

  8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  0

  15

  0

  23

  2

  1986

  17

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28

  7

  29

  7

  46

  7

  1987

  9

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  2

  32

  2

  41

  2

  1988

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  16

  0

  28

  0

  1989

  8

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  10

  0

  18

  0

  1990

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  17

  2

  17

  2

  27

  2

  1991

  12

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  0

  15

  0

  27

  0

  1992

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  24

  5

  24

  5

  34

  5

  Table 2. Causes to which accelerated registrations in injury by other specified means, undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted (ICD E988.8) were eventually assigned, 1980–90 England and Wales

  Year

  Other accidental deaths E880 to E928

  Suicide and self-inflicted injury E950 to E959

  Assault by firearms and explosives E965

  Injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted E980 to E989

  1980

  1

  —

  1

  2

  1981

  1

  —

  10

  —

  1982

  3

  —

  12

  —

  1983

  3

  —

  9

  —

  1984

  1

  —

  14

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  12

  —

  1986

  1

  —

  9

  —

  1987

  2

  1

  19

  —

  1988

  3

  —

  14

  —

  1989

  —

  —

  8

  1

  1990

  1

  —

  9

  —

  Figures for 1979, 1991 and 1992 are not readily available.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients had waited for treatment for over a year in the North Western region(a) in March 1991 and (b) in the latest month for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 4 May 1993, c. 41]: I regret that there was an error in my previous reply. The last sentence should read
  "in England over the same period, the number waiting over a year fell by 55 per cent. to 72,446—the lowest figure ever recorded".
  412
  identify those deaths which were the consequence of the use of a firearm, or those deaths where the person was a child under the age of 16 years without incurring disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Limehouse Link Road
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who funded the dance which took place in celebration of the opening of the Limehouse link road on 17 May in the Canary Wharf tower; and what was the full cost of this event.

  Sir George Young
  The London Docklands development corporation provided a reception in the Canary Wharf tower for staff involved in the Limehouse link project who were not able to attend the opening ceremony. The total cost of the reception was approximately £3,500.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the full cost, including security arrangements, of the opening ceremony for the Limehouse link road on 17 May.

  Sir George Young
  A total of £64,000. The main costs were for the hire of a marquee, catering, toilets, stands, the parade, plaques and presentation plates.
  413

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he is providing to the task force on deregulation in the construction industry; and what assessment he has made of the effect of removing building regulations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, improving energy conservation and ensuring health and safety in buildings.

  Mr. Baldry
  Officials in my Department have met members of the task force on deregulation in the construction industry, and have provided them with details of the Building Regulations 1991 and the proposals to amend parts L and F. All proposed changes to the Building Regulations are fully assessed before implementation.

  Urban Development Grants
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessments urban development corporations are required to make of the competence of the companies to which they give grants.

  Mr. Baldry
  Urban development corporations are required to assess the ability of companies to carry through the project concerned; their financial viability; and their track record in undertaking similar projects.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines are issued to board members of urban development corporations governing conflict of interest.

  Mr. Baldry
  Board members are issued with a code of conduct on appointment, which includes guidance on how to deal with conflicts of interest and what interests should be declared and recorded in the corporation's register of interests.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what rules or guidelines are applied to the tendering process of urban development corporations.

  Mr. Baldry
  Urban development corporations are required to follow best public sector practice, which is that contracts should be placed on a competitive basis and the lowest tender accepted, subject only to certain clearly defined exceptions where this would not secure best value for money.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the operation of the Merseyside development corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) to his previous question on Thursday 13 May 1993 at column 529.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much each urban development corporation has spent, since its inception, on consultations.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 16 November 1992 at column 48. Updated expenditure on consultants' reports to 31 March 1993, where available, is in the table:
  414

  UDC

  £ million

  Birmingham Heartlands

  0·1

  Black Country

  12·9

  Bristol

  0·7

  Central Manchester

  2—

  Leeds

  2—

  London Docklands

  2—

  Merseyside

  3·2

  Plymouth

  Nil

  Sheffield

  0·6

  Teesside

  4·9

  Trafford Park

  2—

  Tyne and Wear

  4·0

  1 To 31 March 1992.

  2 Not available.

  "Climate Change"
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 15 June,Official Report, column 538, how many of the submissions he received on the discussion document "Climate Change" were from (a) Scotland, (b) organisations and (c) members of the public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  Out of the 254 responses now received to our discussion document, 31 were from Scotland. Twenty-four of these were from organisations and seven from members of the public.

  Albert Dock, Liverpool
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what income has accrued to the Merseyside development corporation from the Albert Dock Company.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the period covering 1987–88 to 1992–93 a total income of £2,022,659 has accrued to the development corporation from the Albert Dock Company in respect of rents, service charges and sales of flats.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what planning permission was sought by the Merseyside development corporation to alter the facade, roofline and approach to the Atlantic pavilion at the Albert dock.

  Mr. Baldry
  MDC did not seek planning permission itself to carry out recent alterations to the facade, roofline and approach to Atlantic pavilion at the Albert dock, since urban development corporations are themselves the planning authorities within their designated areas. Agents acting on behalf of the developers, Linenhall Properties Ltd., sought and received planning permission from MDC.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contracts the Merseyside development corporation entered into with the Arrowcroft Company.

  Mr. Baldry
  The development corporation entered into only one contract—building agreement—with the Arrowcroft Company in September 1983.

  This contract was for the phased conversion and refurbishment of the majority of Albert dock, giving rise to a total of 11 leases.
  415

  Dipsticks
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will oppose the provisions of the EC directive on vapour recovery, stage 1, which call for the ending of dipsticks as the principal method of measuring quantities of petrol in storage and road tankers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  The proposed EC directive will introduce a system of petrol vapour recovery which is not compatible with the use of dipsticks because they cause emissions of vapour. It is therefore appropriate for the dipstick to be phased out as a means of measurement on road tankers. However, the Government have secured an agreement which allows existing road tankers to continue using dipsticks, and allows a satisfactory period to agree an alternative standard measuring system for new tankers.

  PSA Building Management Scotland
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrrangements will be made for maintenance of redundancy and pension arrangements of the PSA Building Management Scotland when the sale of the organisation is completed; and if the Department will be responsible for any redundancy costs incurred by Serco in relation to staff previously employed by the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Baldry
  Staff severance entitlements transfer on sale under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and are protected thereafter by employment law. A replacement pension scheme which is broadly comparable in value to the principal civil service pension scheme, will be established. The group stands behind its subsidiaries. The Department will meet the costs of redundancies, should they occur, in the five years after sale on an agreed basis up to a specified limit.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what long-term commitment has been made by Serco, in respect of long-term commitment to maintain a separate Property Services Agency building management organisation based in Scotland.

  Mr. Baldry
  Serco's objective in acquiring BM Scotland is to expand its business based in Scotland as a separate Scottish company.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whaat estimate Serco has given of the number of jobs that may be lost in PSA Building Management Scotland as a result of the proposed sale of the organisation.

  Mr. Baldry
  Serco does not expect significant jobs loss as a result of the proposed sale. Future jobs for BM staff will of course depend on the ability of the business to compete successfully for contracts as they are re-tendered.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the purchasers of the PSA Building Management business will be required to continue to provide a design capacity.

  Mr. Baldry
  The PSA Building Management businesses each have a range of contracts which require a design input. The purchaser will take over the obligation to service those contracts.
  416
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the number of employees of the PSA Building Management Scotland who would need to opt to transfer to the purchasing company to enable the contract to be completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  I hope that a very large proportion of staff will transfer with the business on sale, but the sale does not need a particular number to choose to transfer for the sale to proceed to completion.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the purchase price offered for PSA Building Management Scotland by the management buy-out.

  Mr. Baldry
  No. Such information is commercially confidential.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received suggesting(a) that there should be a council tax band or bands below band A and (b) that there should be a council tax band or bands above band H; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has received some representations, but we are not persuaded that there is a case for changing the present arrangements.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites established under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 he has visited in an official capacity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since his appointment on 27 May my right hon. Friend has visited no gipsy caravan sites established by local authorities under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 in his official capacity.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the Darwin initiative; and what the role will he of the United Kingdom systematics institutions in the initiative.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 5 July my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, announced the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Darwin Initiative and published a copy of its report; copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We are now inviting applications from British institutions and organisations, including our systematics institutions, for funding to carry out projects under the Darwin initiative. There is £1 million available this year for projects which meet the objectives of the initiative.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the forecast European regional development fund receipts for 1993–94 and the allocation for 1993–94 for the local authority other services block schemes; and if he will make a statement.
  417
  Mr. Gummer
  Total forecast receipts from the European regional development fund paid through the agency of my Department in 1993–94 are £221 million. The allocation of ERDF funds to other services block projects will depend on how much has been spent by authorities and claimed from the European Community through my Department by the end of the year. It is not possible to forecast the final figure at this stage. From April 1993, the Government are providing public expenditure cover, automatically and in full, for forecast ERDF receipts.

  Renovation Grant System
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the findings of the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers—PIEDA—report into the new renovation grant system; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report "Monitoring the New Renovation Grant System" by PIEDA was published on Monday 5 July. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  "Monitoring the Fitness Standard"
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the findings of the Warwick university report "Monitoring the Fitness Standard"; and if he will place copies in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  The report will be published next month. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  PSA Building Management
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now give details of the severance sharing agreements with purchasers of the PSA Building Managment businesses.

  Mr. Curry
  Each of the sales of the five PSA Building Management businesses include arrangements under which the Secretary of State will contribute towards the costs of redundancies up to an agreed value during the five years from completion of the sale.

  The amounts concerned for BM South and West, BM South East, BM Scotland and Noreast Building Management are as follows:

  £ million

  BM South and West

  25·0

  BM South East

  30·0

  BM Scotland

  15·0

  Noreast BM

  29·5

  The amount which the Secretary of State will contribute towards the cost of redundancies in the five years after sale in BM Manchester depends upon the result of the staff choice exercise which is currently under way, and will fall in the range of £26·0 to £37·2 million.

  The amounts are subject to a pro rata adjustment to reflect changes in the aggregate redundancy entitlements of staff up to completion.

  Sellafield MOX Plant
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what considerations led to the timing of his direction of 7 July to Copeland borough council not 418
  to grant planning permission to the Sellafield mixed oxide plant at the meeting of the council's planning committee on that day; when his Department first knew about the application; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) under what statutory powers, and for what reasons, his officials directed Copeland borough council not to grant planning permission for the Sellafield mixed oxide plant;

  (3) when he expects to be able to reach a decision on the application by British Nuclear Fuels plc for planning permission to construct a mixed oxide plant at Sellafield.

  Mr. Yeo
  On 23 June my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a request from British Nuclear Fuels plc for a direction that environment assessment of its proposal for a MOX plant at Sellafield was not needed. Although BNFL subsequently withdrew that application the Secretary of State decided that he ought to reach his own view. To provide time to consider the arguments Copeland council was directed, under the provisions of article 14(1) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988, not to grant permission on 7 July when they considered the application.

  We will conclude our consideration of this matter as soon as possible. I will write to the hon. Member.

  Local Government, Cumbria
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Local Government Commission's consideration of local government reorganisation in Cumbria; and when he expects to receive its recommendations.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) on 4 February at column 244. The review of Cumbria is scheduled to start on 20 September 1993 and end on 4 December 1994.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names and background details of the lead commissioners for the Local Government Commission's consideration of local government reorganisation in Cumbria; and if he will make a statement on the published timetable for the commission's work.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Local Government Commission announced on 2 June that the lead commissioners for its review of Cumbria and Lancashire will be Mrs. Ann Levick and David Ansbro. The commission's press release gave brief biographical details for each commissioner and I have placed a copy in the House Library.

  We are keeping the commission's work programme under review.

  Birmingham City Council
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered Birmingham city council's response to the notice served on the authority on 24 April under section 19(A) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has given careful consideration to the response which Birmingham city
  419
  council has made to the notice served on the authority on 24 April 1993, and has today given the authority a direction under section 19B of the 1980 Act. The effect of the direction is that the council is required to retender in stages 12 housing repair contracts currently carried out by its own direct labour organisation. If the council wishes to carry out this work after 1 October 1994 then it needs to satisfy my right hon. Friend at each stage that it has fulfilled the competition requirements as laid down in the legislation.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to allow new development in rural mid-Kent as a result of the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Curry
  Existing strategic planning policy for Kent seeks to restrict the development of fresh land in the countryside and to give protection to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I fully endorse that policy. Much of the rural area between Maidstone and the Medway towns forms part of the Kent downs area of outstanding natural beauty; elsewhere other conservation policies apply. The current third review of the Kent structure plan specifically recognises the importance of maintaining the separation of the built-up areas of Maidstone and the Medway towns by proposing the designation of a strategic gap, within which large scale development will be restricted. The draft regional planning guidance for the south east, published on 24 March, anticipates growth associated with the rail link being focused in Ashford, and east Kent, and especially in the east Thames corridor.

  Fire Services, Merseyside
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: We have received from the Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority a copy of its resolution commenting on the report of Her Majesty's inspector of fire services and on the authority's finances. We are carefully considering the authority's comments, but we remain satisfied that its 1993–94 standard spending assessment, calculated in accordance with the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94 approved by the House on 3 February 1993, is fair and reasonable.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to bring forward from 1 August each year the deadline for spending returns from local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: We have no plans to change the 1 August deadline for the return of data relating to revenue and capital outturn expenditure.
  420

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the terms and conditions of employment, including basis of remuneration and hours of work of the chairman-designate of Railtrack, the Rail Franchising Director-designate and the Rail Regulator-designate.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend has appointed Mr. Robert Horton as a part-time member of the British Railways board and as chairman-designate of Railtrack, under the general terms and conditions applying to BR board part-time members. His time commitment is, on average three days a week and his salary is £120,000 per annum.

  Mr. Swift and Mr. Salmon are part-time special advisers to my right hon. Friend. Their terms are those of civil service appointments and their remuneration, in accordance with the conventions, is a matter of confidence between them and the Department. My right hon. Friend has announced his intention, subject to the Railways Bill passing through Parliament to Royal Assent, to appoint them to the posts respectively of rail regulator and director of passenger rail franchising. In that event the level of their salaries will be in the public domain.

  Road Closures, City of London
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he had with the City of London corporation on the closure of roads on security grounds; and what discussions were held with London regional Transport regarding the impact of road closures on public transport.

  Mr. Norris
  The City authorities consulted the Department informally about the experimental scheme before they announced it. We understand they also gave advanced warning of the road closures to London Buses Ltd.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what work is being undertaken by either his Department or Union Railways with a view to the construction of a tunnel between Stratford and St. Pancras or King's Cross, as part of the channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Freeman
  Union Railways is undertaking substantial development work for both of the alternative routes shown in its March 1993 report, including possible options for both routes, in association with its study of the St. Pancras and King's Cross terminus options.

  River Avon (Navigation)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statute or statutes under which there is a right of navigation of the River Avon in Bristol for any vessel which has paid harbour duties.

  Mr. Norris
  In general, there is a public right of navigation on tidal rivers. Section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, relating to free access for the public to harbour, dock and pier on payment of
  421
  rates, is applied to shipping using the Port of Bristol by the relevant special Acts and subsequent orders relating to the port.

  British Rail (Speed Restrictions)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding track mileage on which British Rail has introduced temporary speed restrictions due to lack of funds for maintenance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Detailed information of this nature is not held by the Department.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to establish the scope for a joint venture with the private sector to renew the infrastructure of the west coast main line.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government today appointed Hambros Bank Ltd. to advise on the scope for such a joint venture. The study marks a new departure in our efforts to involve private finance in railway projects. Up to now the Government have invited the private sector to come forward with proposals which have then been considered on their merits. With this study the Department is taking the initiative. Hambros has been given a remit to develop an outline proposal or proposals which will be attractive to the private sector and fall within the Government's published guidelines for joint ventures. These mean that control of the venture will rest with the private sector who will also be expected to take on genuine risk in return for an appropriate share of revenues. Consortia will be invited to bid for the role of joint venture partner on these terms.

  The Government are determined to pave the way for private sector funding on railway projects. Equipment on the west coast main line is reaching the end of its economic life. We are hopeful that private sector funding will enable us to bring forward modernisation of one of the premier railway routes in the country.

  Maintenance Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Transport what were the average hours worked per week by British Railways Board track and signal maintenance staff during the latest period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  During the week ending 3 July 1993 track maintenance staff, excluding those who were absent through sickness or other reason for all or part of the week, worked an average of 52·1 hours. Signalling and telecommunications maintenance staff, during the week ended 24 April 1993, excluding those who were absent through sickness or other reason for all or part of the week, worked an average of 47·4 hours.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects local coastal search and rescue committees to convene their first meetings.

  Mr. Norris
  In the autumn.
  422

  Shipping Standards
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is considering any plans to adopt standards for shipping in the United Kingdom; and what account he is taking of whether such standards are compatible with the framework set by the International. Maritime Organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: Safety standards for shipping are under continuous review, particularly at the International Maritime Organisation. The standards applying to United Kingdom ships are based upon those developed internationally unless there is just cause to do otherwise, such as the initiative being taken with our European neighbours to establish adequate survivability standards for roll-on-roll-off passenger ferries built before 1990.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Synthesis Evaluation Study
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the full evaluation report for each of the projects on which the Overseas Development Administration's ATP synthesis evaluation study, EV490 of November 1991, was based.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The ATP synthesis study was based primarily on three evaluation studies conducted as a series during 1990 and summarised in appendices B, C and D of that report. Copies of those studies have now been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Evaluation material on three projects in Botswana, Bangladesh and Burma were included in the "Power Synthesis Report" which is already in the Libraries of the House. A further study of scattered diesels, in Indonesia was undertaken jointly with the World bank which, in line with its usual practice, has not agreed to its release. The fifth report—"locom Telephone Cable Project in India"—contains comercially-sensitive material and has not been released.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list United Kingdom bilateral development assistance to Indonesia for the last five years including projects and their nature, value, location and the names of United Kingdom companies involved.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Commitments of United Kingdom bilateral assistance to Indonesia for the period from 1 April 1988 to date have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  International Finance Corporation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of British companies that have secured contracts for International Finance Corporation-funded projects over the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  International Finance Corporation—IFC—loans go directly to private sector companies in
  423
  developing countries. It is these companies that are responsible for awarding contracts to suppliers of goods and services. The IFC is not party to these contracts so is not able therefore to give details of contract awards for any individual country.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will supply the details of dividends the United Kingdom has received from International Finance Corporation investments since the end of the financial year 1991.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Member Governments of the International Finance Corporation do not receive dividends from the corporation's investments. Earnings are wholly retained and recycled for new activity.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Charilaos Costa
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General when Mr. Charilaos Costa left the United Kingdom; what request has been made for his extradition; and if he will make a statement.

  The Solicitor-General
  Mr. Charilaos Costa left the United Kingdom in March 1991 and went to the Republic of Cyprus. No application has been made for his extradition because Mr. Costa is a Greek Cypriot and the Republic of Cyprus will not extradite its own nationals.

  Mr. Costa left the jurisdiction before he could be charged. However, three warrants exist for his arrest if he were to return.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to lay before Parliament and to publish the annual report of the Crown Prosecution Service for the year 1992–93.

  The Attorney-General
  The annual report for the Crown prosecution service for 1992–93 was laid before Parliament at 11 am today and then published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what authority will carry out the checks proposed under article 3 of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation; what computer facilities will be provided to the authority; what are the cost implications of such checks and such computer facilities; and if he will place a copy of the guidelines to be issued to the authority in the Library;

  (2) what authority (a) was responsible for and (b) carried out the drafting of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation;
  424
  (3) what plans Ministers responsible for immigration in the member states of the European Community have to harmonise their rules relating to the interpretation of public policy and national security as grounds for expulsion;

  (4) what abuse is intended to be addressed by article 4, indent 3 of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation;

  (5) what steps the Government plan to take to implement article 2 of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation;

  (6) what consideration has been given to the cost implications of taking measures to implement article 1 of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation;

  (7) if he will make a statement on the effect of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation, on the current pattern of checks on persons admitted to be reunited with their families;

  (8) what measures have been taken to implement article 1 of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation;

  (9) what measures the Government plan to take or continue to take to ensure compliance with article 4 of the recommendation of the Ministers responsible for immigration at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 and 2 June on checks and expulsions of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The recommendation concerning checks on and expulsion of third-country nationals residing or working without authorisation, which was approved by EC Immigration Ministers at their meeting in Copenhagen on 1 June 1993, seeks to ensure that effective procedures are in place to prevent people from entering or remaining unlawfully in member states, or from working there without authority; and to remove those found to have done so unless there are compelling reasons for letting them remain. It was prepared in the ad hoc group on immigration and its sub group on expulsion, and builds on a recommendation of expulsion practices which was endorsed by EC Immigration Ministers at their meeting in London on 30 November 1992.

  The recommendation identifies the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to make checks, but does not have binding legal effect. It specifically states:
  "checks and controls on the residence and employment of third country nationals shall be decided upon and carried out by those authorities which are empowered to do so under national legislation".

  The recommendation is broadly consistent with existing United Kingdom law and practice and no changes

  425
  are currently planned as a result of the recommendation, which does not therefore have any immediate cost implications for the United Kingdom.

  There are no plans for work to harmonise the interpretation of public policy and national security in this context. The main abuse at which the third indent of paragraph 4 of the recommendation is directed is marriages of convenience.

  Anti-abortionists
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concering(a) the entry into the United Kingdom of overseas citizens concerned with disrupting access to abortion clinics and (b) the particular policing implications of maintaining undisturbed access to such clinics.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Representations on both matters have been received from some 30 Members of Parliament and a smaller number of private organisations and individuals. My right hon. and learned Friend may direct exclusion if a person's presence would not be conducive to the public good. Enforcement of the Public Order Act 1986 as it relates to behaviour which may cause harassment or fear of violence is the responsibility of chief officers of police.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with police forces about the steps taken to ensure that women are not prevented from seeking legal abortions, and that clinic staff are not intimidated.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 9 July 1993 at column 296.

  Tobacco (Illegal Importation)
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been relating to the illegal sale of duty-paid tobacco products illegally imported from other states in the European Community and connected offences; what was the outcome of such prosecutions; and what was the level of penalty imposed.

  Mr. Maclean
  Court proceedings data for 1993 will not be available centrally until the autumn of 1995. However Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have advised that there were 275 tobacco offences detected under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 within the period January to May 1993.

  Police (Expenditure)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, in real terms and as a proportion of gross domestic product, the expenditure on police forces in England and Wales for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information is in the following table:426

  Total expenditure on the police

  Year

  Real terms £ million at 1991–92 prices

  Proportion of GDP Per cent.

  1978–79

  3,099

  0·66

  1979–80

  3,426

  0·71

  1980–81

  3,455

  0·74

  1981–82

  3,810

  0·82

  1982–83

  3,932

  0·83

  1983–84

  4,070

  0·83

  1984–85

  4,452

  0·89

  1985–86

  4,172

  0·80

  1986–87

  4,346

  0·80

  1987–88

  4,542

  0·79

  1988–89

  4,690

  0·79

  1989–90

  4,986

  0·82

  1990–91

  5,129

  0·87

  1991–92

  5,408

  0·93

  1992–93

  5,664

  10·98

  1 Estimate.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many Jamaican citizens were initially refused leave to enter the United Kingdom as not being genuine visitors in 1987 and in each subsequent calendar year to date;

  (2) how many Jamaican citizens were initially refused leave to enter the United Kingdom as not being genuine visitors between January and June, inclusive, in 1993 and in the same period of 1991 and 1992.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is in the table.

  Jamaican citizens refused leave to enter, and removed from, the United Kingdom

  Main reason for refusal

  Not a genuine visitor1

  Other reasons2

  1987

  212

  57

  1988

  324

  100

  1989

  692

  111

  1990

  492

  88

  1991

  338

  54

  1992

  344

  65

  1991 January to June

  175

  29

  1992 January to June

  174

  24

  1993 January to March3

  96

  18

  1 Persons refused under paragraph 22 of the immigration rules.

  2 Some may have sought entry as a visitor but been refused mainly for a reason other than not being a genuine visitor.

  3 Data for April to June 1993 are not yet available.

  Failed Prosecutions
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral answer of the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) of 10 November 1992,Official Report, columns 746–47, in how many cases ex-gratia payments have been made by the Government to people who claim to have suffered losses as a result of a prosecution which subsequently failed or was withdrawn.

  Mr. Maclean
  None, in the particular categories specified by the hon. Member.
  427

  Prisoners (Suicide)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of installation of horizontal bars in prisons on the likelihood of prisoners attempting suicide by hanging.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 12 July 1993

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what assessment had been made of the suicide risk posed by horizontal bars in prison design.

  It is the responsibility of prison governors to keep accommodation under review. Where unsafe features are identified consideration will be given to remedial measures, taking into account the resources available for refurbishment and minor works programmes and other priorities. We also have to balance the need to minimise the risk of suicide as far as we reasonably can against the importance of preserving a decent and humane living environment for prisoners.

  Design standards for new prisons are set out in the Prison Design Briefing System (PDBS). PDBS makes provision for vertical bars in prisoner's living accommodation. For health care centres and segregation units at PDBS specifies additional anti-suicide features.

  PDBS standards are kept under review in the light of new research and operation experience, including analysis of all prison suicides. A new anti-suicide cell window design is being tested which aims to make it even more difficult for prisoners to attach ligatures to any part of the window or bars.

  We are not aware of any recent case in which a prisoner has been able to commit suicide by attaching a ligature to horizontal bars. If, however, you have any specific concerns about the use of horizontal bars in a particular establishment I should be grateful if you would draw them to my attention and I will arrange for the matter to be investigated.

  Mark Jarvis
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the downgrading from category A to C and the subsequent home leave granted to Mark Jarvis, recently sentenced for manslaughter and originally in Winson Green prison.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the director general of the prison service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 12 July 1993.

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Mark Jarvis's security category and his home leave.

  When Mr. Jarvis was convicted of rape, armed robbery and abduction of a child in 1985 and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, consideration was given to placing him in category A; this is reserved for those prisoners whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public, police or the security of the state. While Mr. Jarvis was not regarded as presenting such a threat, he was at that stage clearly one for whom escape should be made very difficult and he was classed as a category B prisoner. On reaching 21 he was reclassified as an adult and in view of the gradual improvement in his behaviour and the signs of his maturity he was downgraded to category C. This category is for prisoners who, while they cannot be trusted in open conditions, are judged to have neither the resources nor will to make a determined escape hid.
  428
  Shortly after this his behaviour deteriorated and he was upgraded to category B and moved to a more secure prison. In 1990 his behaviour improved to the point at which it was considered that he should be again downgraded to category C and he remained in that category until he was charged with murder in September last year. He was upgraded to category B and, following his conviction for manslaughter he was transferred to Long Lartin prison.

  In May 1992 Mr. Jarvis became eligible for home leave and he applied to stay with his sister and her family. Home leave is designed to help prisoners adjust to life outside prison and should be restricted to those who pose no risk to the community and whose behaviour in prison has been such as to earn this privilege. In Mr. Jarvis's case, his earlier poor record and the seriousness of his offences would be factors against home leave being granted, but reports on his behaviour in Birmingham were excellent and were considered as strong factors in favour of his application. It was also taken into account that he was nearing the end of a long sentence and that his return to the community was imminent. While bearing all this in mind the home leave board considered that it was still too early to grant home leave and the decision was deferred for further reports. These reinforced the view that he was ready for temporary release and that the address at which he intended to stay was suitable.

  Mr. Jarvis was released on licence on 14 August last year for four days but failed to return to prison at the end of his home leave. The police were notified that he was unlawfully at large. In the early hours of 2 September, a taxi driver was stabbed to death and Mr. Jarvis was later arrested and charged with murder. He was returned to Birmingham prison on 22 September and an inquiry was conducted into the granting of home leave. Two governors reviewed the papers and concluded that the decision to grant home leave was not unreasonable. Subsequently that decision has been reviewed by the area manager and he has reached the same view.

  Clearly, the consequences of the decision to grant home leave to Mr. Jarvis were deeply regrettable and tragic; our sympathy is very much with Mr. Ashiq Hussain's family and friends. The papers on this case have been reported to a Working Party whose task is to review the operation of home leave. With the benefit of hindsight, it may well be that too much emphasis was put on Mr. Jarvis's behaviour in prison and too little on his poor record outside. Under new instructions issued to Governors in October last year, their need to assess the risk in releasing prisoners is reinforced by a more structured approach. Greater emphasis is placed on circumstances outside prison. Had Mr. Jarvis's application been considered after these instructions were issued, it is probable that it would not have been granted.

  Mr. Jarvis was tried for murder at Birmingham Crown Court and was convicted of manslaughter on I July; he was sentenced to five years imprisonment the following day.

  Unsound Convictions
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens convicted of murder and imprisoned have been released on appeal or review as their convictions have been judged unsafe and unsound in each calendar year from 1985.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: The information readily available centrally is in the table.

  Appeals against conviction only or conviction and sentence for murder or life imprisonment, heard by the Court of, Appeal (Criminal Division).

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Year

  Appeals

  Conviction quashed1

  Retrial ordered

  Murder2

  1990

  32

  2

  —

  1991

  32

  10

  1

  Life imprisonment

  1985

  16

  3

  —

  1986

  15

  1

  2

  429

  Year

  Appeals

  Conviction quashed1

  Retrial ordered

  1987

  14

  3

  —

  1988

  20

  3

  1

  1989

  30

  7

  1

  1990

  34

  2

  —

  1991

  39

  11

  1

  1 Excludes case where the conviction was quashed on some counts but confirmed on others, or a conviction for a lesser offence was substituted.

  2 Information for early years is not available.

  Sunday Trading
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his plans to reform Sunday trading law in England and Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 July 1993 c. 207]: I have placed in the Library a copy of a draft Bill together with a covering text explaining the models for reform. I hope this will provide hon. Members with an opportunity to consider carefully the options for reform well in advance of being required to choose between them. We aim to introduce the Bill early next Session.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place on breaches of the Sunday trading laws over the last 12-month period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 June 1993, c. 253]: The number of prosecutions brought in 1991 was in fact 388, not 522 as I previously stated, of which 86 were brought to successful conclusions. I apologise for any difficulty which this mistake may have caused.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Charters
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to make a further statement on new charters.

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 28 June 1993 at column 654. I have nothing further to add to this statement at this time, but will of course keep him and the House informed of any new charters.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  PA Management Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, columns 605–6, if he will place in the Library the reports by PA Management Consultants on (a) United States biotechnology, (b) the feasibility study—"Factory of the Future", (c) the update of the report on manufacturing into the 1990s, (d) emerging generic technologies, (e) the future of Warren Spring Laboratory and (f) the Warren Spring investigation.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is not my intention to publish all of the reports in question. The reports which I have arranged to 430
  be placed in the Library are (a) United States biotechnology and (c) the update on the report on manufacturing into the 1990's which is due for publication in July. Work has only recently begun on (b) the feasibility study—Factory of the Future. The form of the report to be published on (d) emerging generic technologies, has yet to be decided although a related study "Research Foresight and the Exploitation of the Science Base" published in March 1993 is available from HMSO. With regard to the studies on the Warren Spring Laboratory a copy of the report by PA consultancy has been placed in the Library.

  Engineering Companies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department provides to British engineering companies to sell their products abroad.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department, jointly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, provides a wide range of high quality advice and support to exporters which is available to all sectors of United Kingdom industry.

  European Council
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the European Council meeting on 2 July; and what progress was made at that meeting with the proposal to accord to Merseyside objective 1 status.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on 6 July at columns 105–6.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with his Japanese counterpart on preparations being undertaken in Japan for the receipt of(a) low-level, (b) intermediate level and (c) high-level radioactive waste to be returned after reprocessing at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the first instance, these are matters for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers in line with the contracts between them. These arrangements are supported by the existing intergovernmental letters between the United Kingdom and Japan. Since 1976, BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that these options will be exercised and wastes returned.

  THORP
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department was represented at the meeting hosted by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, on 15 June at 1 Parliament street, on the thermal oxide reprocessing plant.

  Mr. Eggar
  No.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the International Atomic Energy Agency in regard to the establishment of an international or regional plutonium store at Sellafield.
  431
  Mr. Eggar
  An informal exchange of views about the possibility of greater international involvement in the storage of plutonium took place in Vienna in December 1992 under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Those present agreed that the meeting had been useful in identifying the issues involved in this area and that further discussions should be held.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what amounts of plutonium are expected to be reprocessed from the final loading of spent fuel extracted from the prototype fast reactor at AEA Technology's Dounreay nuclear establishment when the reactor is shut down in 1994; what information is received from the operator by Her Mjesty's Government in regard to safeguards obligations to(a) EURATOM and (b) the International Atomic Energy Agency covering civil nuclear materials at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement on plutonium storage at Dounreay.

  Mr. Eggar
  The plutonium content of the final fuel loading when the prototype fast reactor is shut down depends on the operational programme. Plutonium arisings from the fast reactor fuel reprocessing plant at Dounreay are transferred to BNFL, Sellafield for long term storage. EURATOM will have a continuing obligation to safegard the plutonium and routine reports of all inventory changes will continue to be sent to the IAEA.

  Dounreay (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received from AEA Technology in regard to the planning timetable for the decommissioning of the Dounreay shaft; and if he has received any request for financial assistance in conducting this decommissioning exercise.

  Mr. Eggar
  Disposals of radioactive waste to the Dounreay shaft were authorised by the Scottish Office. There is no requirement or timetable for its decommissioning. Studies are however being carried out by the AEA to determine whether any further work should be carried out on this facility. These studies are funded by the Department under the decommissioning and radioactive waste management support programme.

  Gas
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of (i) the proportion of the firm contract and tariff market over 2,500 therms which is currently supplied by independent shippers, (ii) the total cost savings made by industry as a result of switching to shippers of gas other than British Gas in each of the last three years for which figures are available and (iii) the average reduction in gas bills achieved by these concerns which have switched to a shipper other than British Gas.

  Mr. Eggar
  By the end of 1992 OFGAS estimates that independent shippers had captured around 20 per cent. of the traditional contract market—above 25,000 therms.

  The Department does not collect price information from independent shippers. However, the latest annual report of the Gas Consumers Council suggests that gas costs to all but the largest consumers have been falling, particularly since the opening to competition of the
  432
  2,500–25,000 therm bracket last autumn. The latest estimate in July 1993 suggests a reduction of 10 per cent. in price to approximately 13 per cent. of the market in this bracket.

  Catering Ware Exports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to bring about a reduction of catering ware duty of 35 per cent. on goods exported to the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In the current GATT Uruguay round market access negotiations, the Government continue to press, through the European Commission which negotiates on behalf of the European Community, for a substantial reduction in the United States 35 per cent. duty on catering ware. Good progress was made in talks in Tokyo on 6 July, at which the EC, United States, Japan and Canada produced an agreed report containing elements of a deal on market access including the objective of reaching 50 per cent. reductions in tariff rates of 15 per cent. and above, subject to agreed exceptions and effective market opening by other participants.

  Textiles and Clothing
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will continue to press for the reduction of United States tariff peaks on textiles and clothing in the GATT Uruguay round; and if he will make a statement on progress made by Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations.

  Mr. Needham
  In the current GATT Uruguay round market access negotiations, the Government continue to press, through the European Commission which negotiates on behalf of the European Community, for substantial reductions in peak United States textile and clothing tariffs. Good progress was made in talks in Tokyo on 6 July, at which the EC, United States, Japan and Canada produced an agreed report containing elements of a deal on market access including the objective of reaching 50 per cent. reductions in tariff rates of 15 per cent. and above, subject to agreed exceptions and effective market opening by other participants.

  Post Office
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Post Office's plans for its present site at King Edward street, EC1; and what are the current terms of their occupancy.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am told by the Post Office that the King Edward building site currently houses inland sorting; deliveries for EC 1–4 postal districts; international sorting; a counter and callers' office. The Post Office has plans to move inland sorting to the Mount Pleasant sorting office and is also considering proposals for a similar move of delivery work.

  The building is owned by the Post Office on a freehold basis.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) all measures taken by his Department in the last 12 months to prevent nuclear proliferation, (b) the

  433
  number of personnel in his Department working to prevent nuclear proliferation and (c) his Department's total expenditure on control of nuclear proliferation in the last year.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry works with other Departments to implement Government policy on nuclear non-proliferation. Over the past 12 months, my officials participated in the European political co-operation working group on nuclear non-proliferation, the nuclear suppliers group and the Zangger committee.

  Grants to British Coal1 and payments under the Redundant Mineworkers Payments Scheme2

  (£ million)

  Financial year

  Deficit and Deficiency Grant

  Social and Restructuring Grant

  RMPS(b)

  Total

  1987–88

  200

  477

  295

  972

  1988–89

  0

  297

  168

  465

  1989–90

  6,153

  1,090

  126

  7,369

  1990–91

  0

  141

  93

  234

  1991–92

  0

  457

  61

  518

  1992–933

  0

  614

  43

  657

  1 Grants to British Coal are at outturn prices, on an accruals basis, taken from British Coal's annual report and accounts.

  2 Redundant mineworkers payments scheme. Figures exclude administration costs.

  3 1992–93 figures provisional.

  In addition to grant aid, the coal industry benefited by about £1 billion a year over the last three years from the financial advantage resulting from the premium over market prices which the electricity generators were paid for their coal supplies from British Coal.

  Foreign Languages
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has about the availability of subsidies to industry for the purpose of staff training in foreign languages or the publication of marketing and promotional material in foreign languages in each EC country.

  . Mr. Needham
  My Department's policy is to increase language awareness through encouraging the learning of languages, the development of language training and to signpost to those offering training, translation and interpreting services. The Government do not subsidise language training or translation costs for business purposes, although we do support a number of language initiatives to provide business with practical solutions.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), 6 July.Official Report, columns 106–7, what were the voting figures for each decision taken at the European Community's Council of Energy Ministers held on 25 June.

  Mr. Eggar
  No formal votes were taken at the Council of Energy Ministers on 25 June.

  European Community Funding
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the distribution in the United Kingdom for 1993, by each assisted region of (1) each of the Community initiatives under the European structural
  434

  Coal
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average level of Government subsidy per tonne of deep-mined coal in each year since 1987 for(a) each of the United Kingdom coal fields, (b) England, (c) Wales, (d) Scotland and (e) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Eggar
  Government grants to the coal industry are not provided on an individual coal field or regional basis. Grant aid made available to the coal industry since 1987 is set out in the table.

  funds, and (2) schemes under objectives 2 and 5(b) of the European structural funds in terms of (a) allocation of grant in ecu and in pound sterling at current exchange rates in total and sub-divided between European regional development fund, European structural fund and other structural funds, (b) the value of grant for approval in ecu and pound sterling at current exchange rates and (c) the amount spent on each programme in 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The structural funds are implemented through multi-annual programmes and in the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Industry (Reduction)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on progress towards obtaining access to EC intervention funds for British warship yards.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I discussed the question with Vice President Van Miert on 8 July. Officials are continuing to progress the case.

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what targets he has set the Laboratory of the Government Chemist for 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist's primary target will continue to be to recover its full costs from income for customer work. This is a demanding target: in addition to the fact that the laboratory is now required to operate in an increasingly competitive market, it also expects to reduce its controllable costs by 2 per cent. this year.

  I have also set it the following secondary targets for 1993–94:

  435
  to increase the rate of completion of reports on analysis of/research into samples by the date agreed with customers from 88 per cent. in the first quarter to over 90 per cent. in the last quarter;
  to achieve more than 85 per cent. of contract research milestones within the time scale agreed with the customer;
  to maintain accreditation from the national measurement accreditation service—NAMAS—for the existing categories of work and obtain NAMAS accreditation for at least one further category of work by April 1994; and
  to acquire laboratory-wide accreditation to BS 5750—ISO 9001—by April 1994.

  In addition, I have set the chief executive of the agency the personal target of replying within 10 working days to letters from hon. Members delegated to him for reply.

  Postal Charges
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what revenue is generated by users of the recorded, registered and special delivery services of the Post Office; and if he can estimate the share of this revenue attributable to business use.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand from the Post Office that the total revenue generated by its recorded, registered and special delivery services in the financial year to 28 March 1993 was £50 million. The estimated share attributable to business use is in the range of 75 per cent. to 80 per cent.

  Miners (Redundancies)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much redundancy pay has been paid to miners employed by the NCB and British Coal for each of the years beginning in 1979 until the latest available date, giving the number of miners.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Redundancy payments made by the NCB and latterly British Coal are a matter for British Coal. Benefits paid and the number of beneficiaries under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme between 1979–80 and 1992–93 are set out in the table:

  Benefits and number of beneficiaries under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme

  Financial year

  Payments £ million

  Number of new beneficiaries qualifying each year

  1979–80

  15

  1,700

  1980–81

  15

  3,200

  1981–82

  48

  10,500

  1982–83

  80

  8,500

  1983–84

  190

  20,400

  1984–85

  200

  8,050

  1985–86

  563

  35,900

  1986–87

  610

  33,950

  1987–88

  295

  0

  1988–89

  168

  0

  1989–90

  126

  0

  1990–91

  93

  0

  1991–92

  61

  0

  1992–93

  43

  0

  (a) Payment figures in the above table exclude administration costs.

  (b) Includes ex-employees of small mine licensees.

  (c) The Redundant Mineworkers Payments scheme closed to new entrants at the end of 1986–87.
  436
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much redundancy money has been paid out to miners since 1979 in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland, giving the number of miners in each case.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Redundancy payments made by the NCB and latterly British Coal are a matter for British Coal. Payments under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme are not readily available on a regional basis.

  Cellphones
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account is taken of the effect of cellphones on hearing aid wearers when agreeing to license them.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Studies by the Radiocommunications Agency show that the new generation digital mobile telephones may cause interference to hearing aids. The Wireless Telegraphy Act licences for operators of these systems require them to minimise transmitter power and so reduce the potential for interference. In addition my Department is encouraging manufacturers to improve the immunity of hearing aids.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade following the Council of Minister's meeting on 2 July, if he will make a statement on the Government's position regarding the European Community Konver programme for defence-dependent areas.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The conclusions reached at the Foreign Affairs Council on 2 and 3 July on the regulations on the future of European structural funds, if confirmed by the Council on 19 and 20 July, will enable member states to make available to areas not designated for objective 1, 2 or 5(b) a limited part of the European regional development fund contribution to the Community initiative Konver. The Government intend to make use of this new flexibility in the United Kingdom's 1993 Konver programme.

  The future choice of Community initiatives was not discussed. It will be considered at a future meeting of the Council.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what individual exemptions have been given under article 85(3) of the treaty of Rome to Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd; and what notices, as required under article 19(3) of EC Regulation 17/62, have been issued in respect of that company's lease agreements.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: I am advised that no individual exemptions under article 85 of the treaty of Rome have been given to Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd, nor has any notice been issued under article 19(3) of EC Regulation 17/62 in respect of the company's lease arrangements.

  In my answer to the hon. Member on 15 June, Official Report, column 497, I said that the United Kingdom Government did not keep a record of individual exemptions under article 85 of the treaty of Rome and that such information could be obtained about the brewing

  437
  industry only at disproportionate cost. I regret that this information was not wholly accurate as information about EC Commission decisions on competition matters is held centrally by the Office of Fair Trading. However this information does not separately identify decisions constituting exemptions from article 85 of the treaty of Rome, nor does it separately identify decisions made in respect of particular business sectors.

  It would not, therefore, be possible to provide a complete record of exemptions granted in relation to the brewing industry except at disproportionate cost, as stated in the answer I gave to the hon. Member previously. This is also the case for notices under article 19(3) of EC Regulation 17/62 in relation to the brewing industry as a whole.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 35, what sales outlets other than public houses were included in the figures given for on-trade beer sales.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The figures include on-sales in pubs, restaurants, cafe-bars and pub hotels.

EDUCATION

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will review the impact of local education authority policies on students wishing to study the performing arts.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to hold such a review.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many different levels of funding exist for grant maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All grants for self-governing schools are calculated under the Education GM Finance Regulations 1993. Different levels of funding are paid under various grant headings depending on the size and circumstances of the school.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools have had ballots to go grant-maintained so far this year; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A total of 409 schools have held parental ballots on self-governing (GM) status so far this year. Three hundred and sixteen of those schools have voted in favour of GM status.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has recently made to, or received from, schools in Hampshire which are seeking, or have obtained, grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We continue to receive a steady flow of inquiries from schools in Hampshire which are interested in applying for self-governing status. We also receive representations from time to time from the 16 Hampshire schools which are already grant-maintained,438
  from the four schools which have been approved to become grant-maintained, and from the nine whose applications for self-governing status are currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend.

  The Department has been running a series of regional conferences to provide basic information on "Going GM". Those attending have included 81 heads and governors from 46 Hampshire schools.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has to make it easier for parents to obtain grant-maintained status for schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Our present Education Bill will streamline the processes involved in a school becoming grant-maintained. Its provisions include: a shorter timetable for balloting and the publication of proposals; annual consideration of grant-maintained status by governing bodies; extra powers for the Secretary of State to void a ballot if there is interference by third parties; modest payments to governing bodies for costs incurred in acquiring grant-maintained status; and limitations on LEA expenditure aimed at influencing the outcome of ballots.

  Experience suggests that, taken together, these changes will help eliminate many of the difficulties which can be encountered in acquiring grant-maintained status.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on recent changes in teacher training.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's teacher training reforms are designed to ensure that all new teachers have the knowledge and skills they need to raise standards in the classroom. My right hon. Friend announced last summer important changes to his requirements for the training of secondary teachers, with more time to be spent in schools, and schools themselves playing a central role in course design and delivery. He is now consulting on similar proposals for the reform of training for primary teachers.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that student teachers spend more time training in the classroom.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans).

  Community Education
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his policy on the development of community education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's policy is to maintain and develop opportunities for adults to participate in further education, and to raise levels of attainment, within the framework set by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.
  439

  Comma and Apostrophe
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he has plans for greater emphasis in schools to be given to teaching the correct use of the comma and apostrophe.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has recently published proposals for revisions to national curriculum English which give greater emphasis to the teaching of punctuation, including the correct use of the comma and apostrophe.

  Truancy
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment his Department has made of the accuracy of truancy figures he plans to publish in his proposed truancy tables.

  Mr. Forth
  It is for individual schools in the first instance to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of their returns. The Department has also specified a series of wide-ranging computerised tests which the contractor will apply to each return.

  Dearing Inquiry
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a further statement on the Dearing inquiry into the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend looks forward to receiving Sir Ron Dearing's advice this month, which will lead to streamlined assessment arrangements in 1994. Sir Ron will also advise before the end of this year on the curriculum and assessment framework for future years.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the report of Sir Ron Dearing on the curriculum to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive initial advice from Sir Ron Dearing later this month on national curriculum assessment arrangements in 1994. Sir Ron Dearing has announced that he will publish his report. Sir Ron Dearing will make further recommendations towards the end of the year on the curriculum and assessment framework more generally.

  People's College, Nottingham
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the capital allocation to the People's college, Nottingham, for the current financial year.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Further Education Funding Council's capital allocation to the college for 1993–94 is £568,000. This includes £250,000 which the college expects to spend on fees and initial site investigations for a major new project.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make it his policy to introduce a more generous system of funding for students in further and higher education.
  440
  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to make the support arrangements more generous than they already are by international standards.

  Eleven plus Examination
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals he has for the reintroduction of the 11-plus examination.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to re-introduce the 11-plus examination. National curriculum tests for 11 year olds in English, mathematics and science will be the subject of a voluntary national pilot in 1994.

  School Leaving Age
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the school leaving age.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Bill provides for the Secretary of State to specify a single school leaving date each year. This will not affect the ages at which pupils leave school.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the average teacher's salary in England.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 1992 new earnings survey recorded the average earnings of all school teachers in England and Wales, including head and deputy teachers, as £20,498.

  Nursery Education
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to meet representatives of the National Campaign for Nursery Education to discuss the campaign.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Key Stage Testing
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the future of testing at key stages of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has asked Sir Ron Dearing to conduct a review of the national Curriculum and assessment framework. He looks forward to receiving Sir Ron's recommendations on future assessment arrangements before the end of this month.

  Nursery Places
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give the number of nursery places in each of the last five years for(a) children under three years and (b) from three years to compulsory school age; and what are the equivalent figures for each EC country.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the number of nursery places is not collected centrally but the numbers of pupils in nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England in each of the last five years and for each age group are shown in the table.
  441
  Comparable information on the numbers of nursery pupils in each EC country is not available.

  Table 1

  Pupils maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England in January of each year (1988 to 1992)

  Pupils ages at previous 31 August

  Year

  Pupils aged 2

  Pupils aged 3 and41

  1988

  27,310

  257,232

  1989

  25,299

  270,285

  1990

  26,508

  280,466

  1991

  27,763

  290,141

  1992

  27,225

  302,510

  1 Excludes pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January—ie those of compulsory school age.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many young people are currently resident in special schools; and what is the estimated annual cost.

  Mr. Forth
  The latest figures are for January 1992. A total of 11,762 pupils were then resident in maintained and non-maintained special schools in England. The total of pupils with special needs resident in independent schools is not collected centrally.

  The annual cost of residential placements in special schools is not collected centrally.

  Physics Teachers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his most recent assessment on the shortage of physics teachers in schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is no overall shortage of physics teachers. Provisional figures for January 1993 show only nine physics secondary teacher vacancies reported for maintained and self-governing schools in England. The 1992 secondary school staffing survey found that only 4 per cent. of physics tuition was delivered by teachers without a post-A level qualification in the subject.

PRIME MINISTER

  Serbia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) of 5 July,Official Report, column 15, on actions by the Serbian Government, if he will list (a) the actions taken by that Government which Her Majesty's Government considers to have fulfilled the requirements of the London conference and (b) the ways in which they have failed to co-operate satisfactorily with the international community's peace efforts.

  The Prime Minister
  The Serbian leadership bears a heavy burden of responsibility for the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, and has not met the fundamental requirements contained in the statement of principles of the London conference to end hostilities and the acquisition of territory by force, to engage in serious negotiation with the other parties, to respect the rights and basic needs of civilians, and to meet the obligations of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
  442

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

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

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the steps taken by his Government to achieve the targets established at the world summit for children.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom response to the declaration and plan of action agreed at the world summit for children is published as Cm. 1984, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Child Migrants Scheme
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set up an inquiry into the child migrants scheme.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. Such schemes date back to the second half of the 19th century and were conducted under duly enacted legislation. They were ended in 1967.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Annunciator Service
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what proposals there are for the modernisation of the House annunciator service.

  Mr. Gary Waller
  The character generation equipment of the annunciator system is to be updated during the summer recess, following the agreement of the Information Committee to a proposal by the Editor of the Official Report. The new system will display the same information as at present when the House is sitting. Before 1 pm on sitting Mondays to Thursdays, the screens will display information on the forthcoming proceedings of the House. The information will be available additionally in teletext form at other times on television sets within the parliamentary estate equipped to receive it.

  There will be a demonstration of the new screen displays on Thursday 22 July in a Committee Room of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will set out the terms of reference for his Department's inquiry into removing unnecessary regulations in the tourism industry.

  Mr. Sproat
  The inquiry will identify first those regulations which place needless and excessive burdens on the tourism industry, and secondly the action required to free business from the harmful effect of those regulations. It will also determine what action is necessary to ensure that the interests of the tourism industry are taken fully into account before regulations are put in place in future.
  443
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures are being taken by his Department to ease the burden of regulation on the tourist industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) on 14 June 1993 at column 619.

  Media Products
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the value earned by the United Kingdom from the export of British media products.

  Mr. Brooke
  Information on exports of media products is not held centrally.

WALES

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are being taken in Wales to inform young people of the dangers of anabolic steroids; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are a number of initiatives, both at a local and national level, within Wales informing young people and others of the dangers of using anabolic steroids.

  In 1990 the Welsh Committee on Drug Misuse identified an increasing problem related to the use of anabolic steroids and initiated action to bring the problem to the attention of practitioners. This resulted in pioneering research and pilot prevention programmes being undertaken in West Glamorgan.

  Most activity is now undertaken through local health and education authorities. In addition the Sports Council for Wales has recently launched an initiative warning about the use of banned drugs in sport, and this includes anabolic steroids. Part of this initiative will be targeted specifically at schools.

  For those individuals who are already involved in steroid misuse, there is advice available on the dangers and on safer practices, including the availability of clean needles and syringes for those who inject their drugs.

  Food Technology
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the National Curriculum Council for Wales recommendation that food technology should be an option rather than mandatory at key stage 3.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I have received the views of the Curriculum Council for Wales on the proposals for a revised technology order which were issued last December. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and I have announced that the timetable for implementation of a revised curriculum in technology should be delayed by a year. This will permit the outcome of the review of the national curriculum and assessment arrangements to be taken into account in the revision of the order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be further consultations before any changes are made.
  444

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the recent report by the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales entitled, "Wales 2012—the United Kingdom's National Sustainability" report and its role and relevance to Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales' views as set out in its report Wales 2012 will be taken into account, along with others received during the consultation process, in the preparation of the United Kingdom's report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development.

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

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As there is no agreed definition of community hospital the information given as follows relates to those hospitals classified as such by the health authorities in question. Other hospitals in the counties have been included to give a complete picture.

  Hospital open

  1980

  1985

  1992

  Clwyd

  Community hospitals

  Catherine Gladstone Maternity

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Chatsworth House

  Yes

  No

  No

  Chirk and District

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Colwyn Bay Maternity

  Yes

  No

  No

  Colwyn Bay Community

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Deeside Community

  No

  No

  Yes

  Denbigh Infirmary

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dobshill

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Flint Cottage

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Holywell Cottage

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Llangollen

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Lluesty

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Meadowslea

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Mold

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Penley

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Prestatyn Community

  No

  No

  Yes

  Royal Alexandra

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ruthin

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Trevalyn Manor

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Other hospitals

  Abergele

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Broughton

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Coed Du

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Gwynfa

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  H. M. Stanley

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Llangwyfan

  Yes

  No

  No

  Maelor General

  Yes

  Yes

  1Yes

  Wrexham War Memorial

  Yes

  Yes

  North Wales

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Pool Park

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Gwynedd

  Community hospitals

  Bronygarth

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bryn Beryl

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bryn y Neuadd

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Brynhseiont

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Caernarvon Eye and Cottage

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Cefni

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Conway

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Dollgellau and District

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  445

  Hospital open

  1980

  1985

  1992

  Druid

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Eryri

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ffestiniog Memorial

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Galltysil

  Yes

  No

  No

  Garth Angharad

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Groesynyd

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Llwyn View

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Madoc Memorial

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  Minffordd

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Stanley Sailors

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Tywyn and District

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Valley

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Other hospitals

  Caernarvonshire and Anglesey General

  Yes

  No

  No

  Llandudno General

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  St. David's

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  Malignant neoplasm of the female breast (ICD 174)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  132

  107

  141

  136

  110

  118

  119

  E. Dyfed

  64

  79

  82

  70

  66

  75

  81

  Pembrokeshire

  34

  35

  34

  22

  23

  33

  35

  Gwent

  85

  128

  139

  134

  134

  99

  137

  Gwynedd

  69

  74

  72

  87

  73

  89

  62

  Mid Glamorgan

  163

  133

  149

  150

  129

  118

  136

  Powys

  27

  29

  26

  46

  40

  36

  34

  South Glamorgan

  109

  127

  99

  107

  94

  98

  114

  West Glamorgan

  91

  98

  102

  104

  103

  103

  106

  Malignant neoplasm of the cervix uteri (ICD 180)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Clwyd

  19

  16

  25

  10

  22

  23

  15

  E. Dyfed

  13

  5

  12

  11

  12

  14

  13

  Pembrokeshire

  10

  4

  4

  3

  4

  8

  3

  Gwent

  25

  15

  17

  21

  16

  21

  15

  Gwynedd

  11

  16

  8

  13

  7

  3

  8

  Mid Glamorgan

  24

  28

  25

  22

  24

  27

  24

  Powys

  4

  4

  6

  10

  8

  8

  6

  South Glamorgan

  19

  19

  10

  9

  15

  10

  9

  West Glamorgan

  14

  25

  19

  22

  16

  19

  14

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  International Classification of Diseases (9th revision).

  Health authority Costs
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the expenditure of the district health authorities in Wales was taken up in administrative costs in the last year for which figures are available; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1991–92 the percentage share of total revenue expenditure that each health authority spends on administration was as follows:

  Expenditure on administration as a percentage of total revenue expenditure

  Health authority

  Per cent.

  Clwyd

  1·6

  East Dyfed

  2·7

  Gwent

  0·9

  Gwynedd

  2·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  1·1

  Pembrokeshire

  1·1

  446
  1 From 14 June 1986 these two hospitals merged to become Ysbyty.

  Breast and Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many women died of(a) breast cancer and (b) cervical cancer in each health authority area in Wales in 1992; and what are the corresponding figures for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of deaths of female residents of each health authority in Wales where the underlying cause was(a) breast cancer and (b) cervical cancer for each year since 1986 are given in the following tables.

  Health authority

  Per cent.

  Powys

  3·4

  South Glamorgan

  3·1

  West Glamorgan

  1·3

  Source: Health authorities annual accounts.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on administration is taken to be that covering authority administration and purchasing expenses.

  2. 1991–92 is the latest year for which accounts information is currently available. It is not possible to provide figures for previous years on a consistent basis because of changes to the format of accounts as a consequence of the national health service reforms.

  PGU Engineering
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether assistance has been offered by his Department to PGU Engineering of Letchworth.
  447
  Mr. Redwood
  To comment on the Department's relationship with this, or any other individual company, would be a breach of commercial confidentiality.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to ensure that no finance allocated to Wales by the EC Commission will be lost by delays in processing paperwork in his office relating to such grant applications from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Projects to take up the whole of the resources allocated to the Welsh structural funds programmes for the calendar years 1992 and 1993 have been identified by the relevant monitoring committees, and formal project approvals are now accelerating. I am confident that all the available structural funds grants will be committed to projects by the end of the year.

  Tourism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that tourism in Wales will continue to be eligible for grant aid under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 that such grants will continue to be administered by the Wales tourist board; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  We have no plans to review current arrangements.

  Disabled People (Planning)
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement outlining the discussions that have taken place between his Department and the Wales Council for the Disabled concerning the participation of disabled people in planning.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Following discussions last year the Welsh Office funded the Wales Council for the Disabled to undertake a participation in planning project, the purpose being to compare consultation strategies and to develop guidelines on good consultative practice in the county social care planning process. The Wales Council for the Disabled is expected to present a full report on this project in the autumn.

  Development Board for Rural Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1991–92 and (c) 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  The DBRW's gross expenditure for these years are as follows:

  £ million

  (a) 1990–91

  19·591

  (b) 1991–92

  221·520

  (c) 1992–931

  225·076

  Gross expenditure includes grant in aid and other payments.

  1 Estimated.

  2 Includes premature redemption of NLF debt.

  448

  Wales Tourist Board
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total budget of the Wales tourist board in 1991–92 and 1992–93; and how much money was allocated to its north Wales office during both years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The WTB's gross expenditure for 1991–92 and 1992–93 was £12·946 million and £15·287 million respectively. Gross expenditure includes grant in aid and other receipts.

  No funds are directly allocated to the north Wales office.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for total expenditure on the valleys initiative for each year between 1988–89 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Redwood
  Total public expenditure for each of the five financial years of the first programme for the valleys (1988–93) was:

  £ million

  1988–89

  139·330

  1989–90

  137·440

  1990–91

  148·810

  1991–92

  171·033

  1992–93

  1176·270

  Total

  1772·883

  Note.—Figures exclude housing programmes.

  1 Estimated outturn based on the 1992–93 provision.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the conclusions of the evaluation of the valleys initiative conducted by Victor Hausner Associates; and when it will be published.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not yet received the final report of the evaluation study. I expect to publish it in due course.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims have been made for severe disablement allowance by pupils(a) in special schools and (b) integrated into mainstream schools in Wales in each year since 1987; and how many claims were successful in each instance.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorism
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been(a) killed and (b) wounded by terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland in each year since 1969.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The available information is set out in the table.
  449

  Terrorist-related deaths1

  Injuries2

  1969

  6

  765

  1970

  20

  811

  1971

  131

  2,592

  1972

  401

  4,876

  1973

  219

  2,651

  1974

  203

  2,398

  1975

  241

  2,474

  1976

  283

  2,729

  1977

  105

  1,387

  1978

  71

  985

  1979

  112

  875

  1980

  70

  801

  1981

  84

  1,350

  1982

  85

  525

  1983

  66

  510

  1984

  53

  866

  1985

  49

  916

  1986

  55

  1,450

  1987

  84

  1,130

  1988

  87

  1,047

  1989

  58

  959

  1990

  66

  906

  1991

  88

  962

  1992

  75

  1,066

  31993

  31

  310

  1 Figures show all persons killed by terrorist actions and therefore include, for example, people killed in sectarian incidents, those killed while handling explosives and those killed in public order situations. They exclude those killed by the police or armed forces.

  2 Figures show all injuries due to the security situation in Northern Ireland and therefore include, for example, injuries resulting from the actions of the security forces.

  3 to 31 May.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many concessionary fishing licences have been issued to disabled anglers and anglers with severe mobility problems in Northern Ireland by his Department in each of the last five years; what is the full cost of each licence in each year, and the cost at the concessionary rate; how many similar concessionary licences or permits have been issued by the Fisheries conservancy board and the Foyle fisheries commission in the same years; and what was the full and concessionary cost of such licences or permits.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Concessionary permits were first introduced in 1992 and 40 were issued at a cost of £25·90 as compared with £41·70 for a general season permit. In 1993, to date, 75 have been issued at a cost of £20·00 as compared with £42·75 for a general season permit. The Fisheries conservancy board and Foyle fisheries commission do not have the statutory authority to issue licences at concessionary rates.

  Fisheries Review
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the names of the persons who are carrying out the review of the Foyle fisheries commission, indicating the nature of the expertise of the persons concerned, when the review began, when the report will be published, and the persons and bodies consulted by the review team.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The management review of the Foyle fisheries commission is being undertaken by a450
  multi-disciplinary team of consultants from the Belfast and Dublin offices of KPMG Management Consulting. The team assigned to the project incorporates a wide range of expertise including business management, financial management, human resource management, corporate finance, strategic marketing, environmental management, pension funding and aquatic science.

  The review commenced in early February 1993 and the report is expected to be finalised in August 1993. As the report will deal largely with a management review it is not envisaged that its text will be released into the public domain. However, should its recommendations lead to changes which would be of public interest, these will be brought to public attention. Those consulted by the review team included the appropriate Departments of Government in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the Foyle fisheries commission, the advisory council for the Foyle area, and representatives of angling, draft net fishing, drift net fishing and shellfishing interests.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Colombia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific infringements of human rights he intends to raise with the President of Colombia during his forthcoming visit.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We expect wide-ranging discussions including human rights. But it would not be right to specify points in advance of President Gaviria's visit.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from, or on behalf of, civic groups and local government in Colombia about the environmental and social impact of BP's exploration in the Cusiana oil field; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have received no such representations.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has recently received from his United States counterpart in regard to the United States Administration's current policies towards the military nuclear programme in North Korea.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are in close and frequent contact with the Government of the United States over the problem of North Korea's failure to comply with its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The United States is actively seeking a lasting solution to the problem by which North Korea would reaffirm permanantly her commitment to the non-proliferation treaty, and abide by her safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Bilateral talks between the Governments of the United States and North Korea are set to resume on 14 July in Geneva.
  451

  Research Projects
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1992,Official Report, column 86, how many research projects in universities have been signed or funded by the Government communication headquarters since that date; which universities were involved; what was the title of each project; and how much each was worth.

  Mr. Hurd
  There have been no further research projects signed or funded by GCHQ since 1 December 1992.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long a person applying for entry clearance for settlement at the British post in(a) Manila, (b) Accra, (c) Lagos, (d) Kingston, (e) Nicosia, (f) Cairo, (g) Bangkok, (h) Rabat and (i) each post in each country of the Indian sub-continent on 31 March or the latest convenient date could expect to wait for (i) interview, (ii) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (iii)

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Islamabad

  3 months

  3 months

  6 months

  9 months

  Karachi

  No queues

  —

  —

  —

  Dhaka (end of May)

  3 months

  7 months

  8 months

  10 months

  New Delhi

  1 day

  4 months

  7 months

  10 months

  Bombay

  1 day

  4 months

  7 months

  9 months

  Madras

  1 day

  7 weeks

  5 weeks

  Nil

  Calcutta

  No queues

  —

  —

  —

  Settlement queues are organised as follows:

  Q1 Persons with a claim to the right of abode, dependent relatives over 70 years, special compassionate cases.

  Q2 All spouses and all children under 18 years.

  Q3 Fiance(e)s and others applying for the first time.

  Q4 Re applicants.

  Visit visa applications are dealt with within 24 hours excect in Islamabad where, due to seasonally high demand, applicants requiring a full interview can expect to wait 5–7 days.

  (ii) If referred to the Home Office, inquiries concerning applications may take from 1–12 months depending on individual circumstances.

  (iii) Decisions after first interview are taken within 24 hours in the majority of cases in Indian Sub Continent posts.

  (iv) Despatch times of explanatory statements are:

  Settlement

  Non-settlement

  Islamabad

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Karachi

  Figures not available at this time

  Dhaka

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  New Delhi

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Bombay

  12 weeks

  4 weeks

  Madras

  Figures not available at this time

  Calcutta

  4 weeks

  4 weeks

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the size of the population of Gladovici on 13 March.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.
  452
  decisions and (iv) an explanatory statement prepared by the post in the event of an appeal against a refusal to be dispatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As at 31 March the timings required at (i) (ii) and (iv) are set out for posts(a) to (h).

  The information requested at (iii) is not available. Times vary according to the circumstances of individual cases. Many decisions are made on the day of interview.

  Post

  (i)

  (ii)

  (iv)

  Manila

  4 weeks

  2–3 months

  1–3 months

  Accra

  4 days

  2 months

  3 months

  Lagos

  2 days

  4 months

  3 months

  Kingston

  6 weeks

  2–3 months

  1 week

  Nicosia

  1 day

  6 weeks

  1 month

  Cairo

  1 day

  5 days

  2 months

  Bangkok

  6 weeks

  2–3 months

  3 months

  Rabat

  Visa operation centralised in Casablanca

  from 1 March 1993

  (i) As at 31 March the timings required for each post in each country of the Indian Sub-Continent for settlement interviews (in months) were:

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received from the United Nations on the financial viability of the placing of monitors along the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; if it remains Her Majesty's Government's policy to support the placing of these monitors; why no action has been taken to place them since the United Nations Security Council resolution on 16 November 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations estimate that the cost of United Nations observation, reporting, searching and—if necessary—denying access to traffic crossing the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina would be $69 million for the first six months.

  The President of the Security Council wrote to the Secretary General on 7 July requesting him to contact member states to establish whether they will make available the required personnel.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 February 1992 to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham),Official Report, column 185, what progress the Croatian Government have made in fulfilling their obligations to minority rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Croatia has made some progress in its approach to minorities, although we consider that its performance should continue to be closely monitored. We remain concerned that efforts to resolve the dispute in the
  453
  United Nations protected areas and implement the Vance plan for Croatia are blocked, and we urge the parties to return to negotiations.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the text of the United Nations personnel report into the bombing of Gladovici on 13 March at 16:15 hours GMT; when that report was received by Her Majesty's Government; what representations were made to Her Majesty's Government by foreign Governments regarding this incident, the Secretary General of the United Nations or the President of the Security Council; and on what day they were received.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only document we have seen from the United Nations about the bombing of Gladovici was UN note verbale s-24900-Add 27 of 16 March, a copy of which was placed, at the request of the hon. Member, in the House of Commons Library on 23 June 1993. We received no representations on this incident from foreign governments, or from the United Nations. The Bosnian Serb leader, Dr. Karadzic, wrote to the Prime Minister on 31 March about several matters including enforcement of the no-fly zone.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 19 February 1992 to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham)Official Report, column 18, what changes there have been in Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Croatia since February 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As my right hon. Friend explained to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, (Mr. Bellingham) on 19 February 1992 at column 185, all aspects of our policy towards Croatia are under constant review. We are becoming increasingly concerned about Croatia's failure to co-operate fully in efforts to secure peace in the former Yugoslavia and, as Heads of Government made clear at the Tokyo economic summit on 7 to 9 July, stronger measures cannot be excluded.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence Her Majesty's Government have received indicating Croatian violations of UN Security Council resolution 713; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglass Hogg
  The United Nations sanctions committee is responsible for evaluating and investigating evidence of possible breaches of the arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia. Where necessary, the committee refers cases to the United Nations Security Council. It did so in September 1992 in respect of a possible violation of UN Security Council resolution 713 involving Croatia. The matter is now with the Security Council.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby. (Mr. Wareing), of 2 July,Official Report, column 654, what UN reports he received on the final destination of these aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, (Mr. Wareing) on 8 July 1993, at column 239. There have been no reports as to the final destination of the aircraft.
  454
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he received from either the Bosnian-Serb authorities or the authorities in Belgrade regarding UNSC no-fly zone enforcement resolutions as a result of the bombing of Gladovici in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Bosnian Serb leader, Dr. Karadzic, wrote to the Prime Minister on 31 March 1993 about several matters including enforcement of the no-fly zone.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if during his visit to Japan for the G7 summit he discussed nuclear testing with his American, French and Russian counterparts.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This issue was raised briefly in discussion with the United States Secretary of State in Tokyo. It was not discussed there with either the French or the Russian Foreign Minister.

  Entry Clearance Appeals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many explanatory statements related to entry clearance appeals were awaiting typing at each post in the Indian subcontinent, in Manila, Kingston, Bangkok, Lagos and Accra on the latest available date; how many staff are employed both full time and part time to type statements; and when he expects backlogs to be cleared.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information requested is given in the following table (as at 31 March):

  (a) Number of explanatory statements awaiting typing.

  (b) Stall whose duties include typing explanatory statements (staff also employed on other typing duties shown in brackets).

  Post

  (a)

  (b)

  Islamabad

  149

  9

  (1)

  Karachi

  Figures not available at this time

  Dhaka

  410

  5

  (3)

  New Delhi

  157

  4

  —

  Bombay

  50

  (9)

  —

  Madras

  Figures not available at this time

  Calcutta

  11

  (1)

  —

  Manila

  37

  2

  —

  Kingston

  0

  1

  —

  Bangkok

  0

  (1)

  —

  Lagos

  10

  2

  (1)

  Accra

  0

  1

  —

  The posts in Islamabad, Dhaka and New Delhi estimate that they should clear the backlog in two to three months after the busy summer period.

  Ukraine
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Ukraine following the decision on 2 July in the Ukrainian Parliament to claim ownership of all nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory.
  455
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have noted the statement, which also repeated Ukraine's commitment to a non-nuclear future. We shall continue to work with our allies to bring about Ukraine's earliest possible ratification of START I and accession to the non-proliferation treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state.

  Settlement Queues
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men, (b) women and (c) children were waiting in each queue at each post in the Indian subcontinent on 31 March or the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of men, women and children waiting in the settlement queues for interviews in the Indian Sub-Continent Posts at 31 March was:

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Islamabad

  Men

  25

  497

  89

  680

  Women

  57

  478

  70

  84

  Children

  0

  193

  0

  0

  Total

  82

  1,933

  159

  764

  Karachi

  Figures not available

  Dhaka

  Breakdown not available

  New Delhi

  Men

  0

  76

  70

  61

  Women

  0

  256

  97

  29

  Children

  0

  35

  2

  10

  TOTAL

  0

  367

  169

  100

  Bombay

  Men

  4

  77

  67

  113

  Women

  26

  302

  91

  37

  Children

  45

  24

  22

  6

  TOTAL

  75

  403

  180

  156

  Madras

  Men

  7

  8

  0

  0

  Women

  2

  15

  3

  0

  Children

  0

  4

  0

  0

  TOTAL

  9

  27

  3

  0

  Calcutta

  No queues in Calcutta

  GRAND TOTAL

  166

  2,756

  514

  1,020

  Queue 1. Persons with a claim to the right of abode. Dependent relatives over 70 years old. Special compassionate cases.

  Queue 2. All spouses and all children over 18 years.

  Queue 3. Finance(è)s and others applying for the first time for settlement.

  Queue 4. Reapplicants.

  There are no queues for visit applications other than in Islamabad, where due to seasonally high demand, applicant requiring a full interview can expect to wait five to seven days.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on the reasons for the United Nations' inspection team in Iraq withdrawing from Baghdad on 5 July; and if the matter has been raised in the United Nations Security Council subsequently.
  456
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations inspection team withdrew from Iraq on 5 July because of Iraq's refusal to allow installation of surveillance cameras at two missile test stands. The matter has been discussed at informal meetings of the United Nations Security Council ambassadors.

  Canada (Logging)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Government of British Columbia to reverse the decision to make a substantial proportion of the remaining unlogged area of the Clayoquot sound region available for logging.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The recent decision on land use in the Clayoquot sound area of Vancouver island was for the Government of British Columbia to make. The Canadian Government and British Columbia authorities are well aware of public concern in the United Kingdom about logging in the Clayoquot sound region.

  Sudan
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the steps taken by the Government to help secure a peaceful settlement of conflicts in Sudan, and to safeguard human rights.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have consistently urged all the parties to the civil war in Sudan to settle their differences by peaceful means, most recently during the EC Troika mission to Sudan on 18 to 22 June, in which the United Kingdom was represented. We were a prime mover in securing the appointment by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva of a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights situation on a public basis throughout Sudan.

  Departmental Replies
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's current practice regarding replies sent to hon. Members of the House; under what circumstances replies are sent by officials; how it is decided whether a reply concerning constituency cases is sent by a Minister or an official; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our present practice is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to reply to letters from right hon. Members and for other Ministers to reply to hon. Members.

  The exception is correspondence on visa and immigration issues dealt with by officials of the migration and visa correspondence unit. They seek to reply to all inquiries within three weeks and achieve this target in 84 per cent. of all cases. The services which the unit offers are explained in a booklet sent to all Members last year. It has been revised and will be reissued this week. The unit replies to 94 per cent. of letters received from hon. Members. Ministers reply in the remaining 6 per cent. of cases.
  457

  Royal Family
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) of 24 June,Official Report, column 240, what items of expenditure were covered by (a) the cost of the Prince and Princess of Wales's visit to Nepal and (b) the cost of the Princess Royal's visit to India.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Items of expenditure paid by the Department have been in the following categories:

  (a) for the Princess of Wales' visit to Nepal—hotel expenses; and miscellaneous (including insurance and reconnaissance visits partly for security purposes).

  (b) for the Princess Royal's visit to India—travel; hotel expenses; official presents and donations; bank, postal, telephone and telegraph charges; and miscellaneous.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has the power of appointment of(a) the Hong Kong Registrar of Companies, (b) the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, (c) the Inland Revenue Commissioner for Hong Kong, and (d) the Financial Secretary of the Hong Kong Legislative Council.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The Registrar of Companies and the Commissioner of Inland Revenue are appointed by the Secretary for the civil service. The chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is appointed by the Financial Secretary. The Financial Secretary is appointed by the Governor.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give(a) the name of the present Financial Secretary of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and indicate whether he is an appointed or a directly elected member and (b) the names of the members of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority together with the banks and other financial institutions they are associated with.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The present Financial Secretary is Mr. Hamish MacLeod. He is an ex-Officio member of the Legislative Council appointed by the Governor. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is part of the Hong Kong Government. The chief executive is Mr. Joseph Yam. He is not associated with any banks or financial institutions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Secret Fish Holds
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Spanish vessels, British and Spanish registered, have been found by United Kingdom to have secret fish holds in each year since 1991; and how many have been prosecuted.

  Mr. Jack
  There have been no prosecutions, but legislation is being brought forward shortly to provide for the prosecution of the owners or skippers of vessels over 17 m which fail to carry plans of their rooms. Three vessels, two Spanish-owned but British registered and one Spanish registered, have been found to have secret fish rooms since 1991.
  458

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made of the cost to date of setting up the machinery for the implementation of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992; and what is(a) the number and location of jobs created, (b) the number of vessels so far registered and (c) the number of appeals initiated.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 July 1993.

  Seals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how many reports regarding incidental catches of seals by fishermen the fisheries officers in England and Wales have received to date under the scheme set up to monitor the extent of this interaction.

  Mr. Jack
  There have been no reports of incidental catches of seals under this scheme for England and Wales.

  Pregnant Ewes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the screening of pregnant lowland ewes to ascertain the number of lambs each is carrying.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department does not run any such screening programme, but screening is available from various commercial organisations for a fee. We understand that those who make use of it find it valuable as a means of determining appropriate feeding regimes for their breeding ewes.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Environmental Initiatives
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters in regard to the financing of environmental initiatives were introduced by the United Kingdom at the G7 heads of state economic meeting in Tokyo.

  Mr. Nelson
  The environment, and in particular the follow up UNCED, was one of the issues discussed in Tokyo. The G7 agreed to work to ensure that the global environment facility functions as the financial mechanism to provide funding for the incremental costs of implementing the global environment conventions signed at Rio.

  Government Departments (Expenditure)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of placing in the House of Commons Library each year for the inspection of hon. Members a microfiche copy of a computer printout of each Government Department's expenditure analysed(a) by account code and (b) by item charged.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information on which to base such costings is not held centrally, and could not be assembled without disproportionate cost. The detailed management of operational accounts is a matter for individual Departments.
  459

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the changes made to his Department's definition of unemployment since May 1979, with the dates upon which the changes were made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 26 October 1992 at column 496.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage better skills training; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's strategy is to encourage effective investment in skills by employers and individuals, by stimulating a strong market in training, by encouraging standard setting and by offering training to young people and long term unemployed people. Britain's workforce is becoming more skilled. Over 2·5 million more people in the workforce now have a qualification than five years ago.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the latest available figures for the numbers of people on Government training schemes in North Derbyshire.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 18 June 1993 there were 1,070 people participating in training for work and 1,708 people in training on youth training in the area covered by the North Derbyshire training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated total amount spent by the Government on training since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated total spend on training—including vocational education and enterprise—in Great Britain since 1979, in cash prices, is £23·8 billion and, at 1992–93 prices, is £31·6 billion.

  Vocational Courses (Allowances)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to the statement of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), 16 March,Official Report, column 193, if he will list, by training and enterprise council area, how many educational allowances for vocational courses have been granted to the long-term unemployed since 16 March.

  Miss Widdecombe
  None. Education allowances will be paid under the learning for work initiative which starts in mid August in Scotland and in September in England and Wales.

  Gas Appliance Installers
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unqualified gas appliance installers have been prosecuted in the last year that figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  In 1991–92, 93 informations were laid under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 and the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) (Amendment) Regulations 1990. These resulted in 86 convictions.
  460

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the new earnings survey will continue to provide comparable figures for at least five years on those sectors previously covered by wages councils.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: The new earnings survey obtains information on the earnings of employees covered by wages councils by asking employers to report the relevant wages councils. This practice will clearly cease when there are no wages councils. The extent to which information on earnings for selected occupations, industries and age groups can be used as a replacement, will be investigated before next April.

SCOTLAND

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland on the preservation of the role of the Strathclyde passenger transport executive; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend recognises the important role of Strathclyde passenger transport executive in transport provision. He has taken this into account in the examination of how the functions of local authorities can best be carried out under the various options for local government reform. The Government's proposals wil reflect fully the consideration given to the executive's role.

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

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested on optical appliances vouchers in Scotland is in the table. The information is for vouchers issued through the general ophthalmic services.

  Optical vouchers and repair/replacement vouchers redeemed in Scotland

  Year

  Number of vouchers redeemed1

  Cost of redeeming vouchers £ million

  1986–87

  2—

  3·718

  1987–88

  350,479

  6·332

  1988–89

  317,645

  6·747

  1989–90

  315,266

  6·990

  1990–91

  337,073

  8·566

  1991–92

  410,935

  10·596

  1992–93

  431,956

  3—

  1 Analysis is made from payments made by health boards in Scotland to ophthalmic medical practitioners (OMPs) and ophthalmic opticians (OOs).

  2 Information on the current collection basis for 1986–87 is not centrally available.

  3 Not yet available.

  461

  Child Care Policy
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish his White Paper on child care policy and law.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to publish a White Paper on child care policy and law in due course.

  Children's Rights
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contribution he has made to the United Kingdom's first report to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's first report on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is due to be submitted in January 1994. The Scottish Office will contribute to the report, ensuring that it reflects the situation in Scotland where that is different from the rest of the United Kingdom.

  Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from colleges and universities of further and higher education about the adequacy of student incomes; and what was the substance of those representations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: In the past 18 months or so, my right hon. Friend has received representations about student income from only one educational institution, a university, which argued that students faced financial hardship due to the lack of vacation employment and the withdrawal of entitlement to social security benefits.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent research he has commissioned on(a) the adequacy of student income, (b) the level of student debt and (c) whether students are leaving courses prematurely because of financial need; and what were his findings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: My hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education, announced on Wednesday 21 October 1992 the commissioning of a United Kingdom-wide survey of student income and expenditure initiated jointly by the Education Departments. We hope that the results, which should be available later this year, will bring our knowledge of student income and indebtedness up to date.

  There is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of Scottish domiciled award-holding students who leave their courses prematurely is increasing.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what current information he has on(a) the adequacy of student housing, (b) the extent to which students income meets their housing needs and (c) levels of student debt.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Detailed information on student housing and its cost is not held centrally.
  462
  The survey of student income and expenditure announced by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education on 21 October 1992 will provide certain information on housing costs and student debt.

  Refuge Hostels
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will commission research into what happens in the immediate aftermath to those women and children who leave refuge hostels.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: Research has recently been completed on domestic violence and the effect on children and families. No further research is planned on the specific issue of women and children who leave refuge hostels.

  Police Arrests (Forms)
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum and minimum number of forms which must be completed by a police officer making an arrest followed by(a) release and (b) detention; and what, on average, is the time taken to complete these formalities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: The minimum number of forms which must be completed by an officer making an arrest is two, rising possibly to 20 in exceptional circumstances. On average, the time taken to complete this process is about 60 minutes. Some police forces are introducing automated systems which will reduce the need to complete successive forms manually.

  Women's Aid
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much grant has been awarded to Scottish Women's Aid in each of the years since it first applied for grant.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: The total grants paid from 1978–79 are as follows:

  £

  1978–79

  7,740

  1979–80

  9,433

  1980–81

  13,329

  1981–82

  19,466

  1982–83

  31,395

  1983–84

  38,871

  1984–85

  58,865

  1985–86

  72,141

  1986–87

  84,829

  1987–88

  93,630

  1988–89

  99,860

  1989–90

  106,931

  1990–91

  98,000

  1991–92

  109,911

  1992–93

  121,282

  1993–94

  1115,092

  1 Grant offered.

  Information for the years 1975–76 to 1977–78 is not readily available.
  463

  Racial Harassment
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to criminalise racial harassment and to make racial harassment an aggravation of existing crimes.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The Government have no plans to introduce a new offence of racial harassment. Aggravating factors such as racial harassment can be taken into account for sentencing purposes.

  Conservation Areas
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sites in(a) Strathclyde and (b) the rest of Scotland which will be placed on a list of special areas of conservation under the European Community's Directive 92/43/EEC in the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The Government have not yet proposed any sites for designation as special areas of conservation (SACs) under Directive 92/43/EEC. The country nature conservation agencies and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are at present undertaking the scientific analysis necessary for the preparation of the United Kingdom's national list from which areas to be designated as SACs will be selected.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sites in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole have been or are to be, designated as special protection areas under the European Community's Directive 70/400/EEC on the conservation of wild birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on 16 June 1993.

  Wetlands
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all those wetlands, Ramsar sites, under the European Parliament Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (1971) in(a) Strathclyde and (b) the rest of Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Site name

  Region

  Bridgend Flats (Islay)

  Strathclyde1

  Cairngorm Lochs

  Grampian and Highland

  Claish Moss

  Highland

  Eilean Na Muice Duibhe (Duich Moss-Islay)

  Strathclyde1

  Fala Flow

  Lothian1

  Feur Lochain (Islay)

  Strathclyde1

  Glac Na Criche (Islay)

  Stralhclydc1

  Gladhouse Reservoir

  Lothian1

  Gruinart Flats (Islay)

  Stralhclyde1

  Hoselaw Loch

  Borders1

  Loch An Duin

  Western Isles

  Loch Druidibeg. Loch A Machair and Loch Stilligar

  Western Isles1

  Locy Eye

  Highland1

  464

  Site name

  Region

  Loch Ken and Dee Marshes

  Dumfries and Galloway1

  Loch Leven

  Tayside

  Loch of Lintrathen

  Tayside1

  Loch Lomond

  Strathclyde and Central

  Loch of Skene

  Grampian1

  Loch Spynie

  Grampian1

  Rannock Moor

  Tayside

  Silver Flowe

  Dumfries and Galloway

  South Tayside Goose Roosts

  Tayside1

  Upper Solway Flats and Marshes

  Dumfries and Galloway1

  1 Also designated as a special protection area under the EC Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC).

DEFENCE

  Fast Jet Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the required(a) vertical and (b) horizontal avoidance distances for camouflaged fast jet aircraft of activities notified under the civil aircraft notification procedure.

  Mr. Hanley
  Civil pilots can if they wish, notify low level aerial activity under the civil aircraft notification procedure specifying the location and horizontal dimensions of the area in which they will be operating, together with the maximum height of their activities. Commercial activity accepted for notification attracts temporary avoidance status, in which case pilots of military fixed wing aircraft flying in excess of 140 knots are required to avoid the specified area laterally or if overflying it to do so at a minimum height of 300 ft above the maximum specified in the notification. Recreational and other aerial activity does not normally attract avoidance status but when details are provided they are passed to military air crew who will take account of such activities in planning their sorties.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 159, if he is yet able to give an analysis of the noise generated by the F-15E aircraft at low level.

  Mr. Hanley
  For technical reasons, the F-15E aircraft involved in the trial last September were unable to achieve all of the planned runs over the test site and firm conclusions could not be drawn from the limited data produced. A further trial which was arranged earlier this year had to be abandoned due to adverse weather conditions but has been re-arranged for later this month.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the nature of the sortie, (b) the recorded height, (c) the recorded speed and (d) the home base of the military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton, south Yorkshire on 30 June at approximately (i) 22:00 hours, (ii) 22:04 hours, (iii) 22:08 hours, (iv) 22:12 hours, (v) 22:15 hours, (vi) 22:19 hours, (vii) 22:23 hours (viii) 22:23 hours, (ix) 22:35 hours; and what notification was given to the pilots of the aircraft of two low-speed non-jet aircraft in the area between approximately 22:20 hours and 22:35 hours.
  465
  Mr. Hanley
  A number of Tornado aircraft from RAF Cottesmore conducted routine low-level training in the area at about the times stated on 30 June. We have no reason to believe any of the military aircraft flew below the permitted height of 1,000 ft. No military non-jet aircraft were booked to low fly in the area at the time, and no notification was received under the civil aircraft notification procedure or by other means of any civil aircraft activity.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the limit on the number of aircraft permitted to operate simultaneously in low-flying area 17 includes any civil aircraft known to be operating in the area at less than 2,000 ft above sea level.

  Mr. Hanley
  The limit placed by the Ministry of Defence on the number of aircraft permitted to fly in low-flying area 17 at any one time applies only to military aircraft flying below 2,000 ft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given by his Department to the printing of pipeline routes on military low-flying charts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The national air traffic services have set in hand a review of the civil aircraft notification procedure—CANP. The review will include consideration of whether helicopters conducting pipe and power line inspections should be included in the CANP system and of the possibility of printing pipeline routes on military low-flying charts.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capacity the ALFENS system will have to provide warning to military pilots of pipeline and power line aerial survey activity.

  Mr. Hanley
  ALFENS will provide information to military pilots on civil air activity notified under the national air traffic services'—NATS—civil aircraft notification procedure—CANP. Pipe and power line aerial

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Private

  12

  9

  8

  7

  18

  Lance Corporal

  4

  2

  1

  1

  2

  Corporal

  1

  1

  0

  4

  2

  Sergeant

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  Staff Sergeant

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Warrant Officer II

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Warrant Officer I

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Subaltern

  1

  3

  2

  0

  0

  Captain

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Major

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Lieutenant Colonel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Colonel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brigadier

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  General

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  All Ranks

  23

  19

  17

  15

  23

  Percentage of all Army exits

  0·10

  0·08

  0·07

  0·08

  0·10

  Air Crash, North Sea
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 October 1992,Official Report, column 159, if he is yet able to give the
  466
  survey activity is excluded from CANP at present but a review is in hand by NATS to consider whether it may be included in future.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list(a) the nature of the sortie, (b) the recorded height, (c) the recorded speed and (d) the home base of the military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton, south Yorkshire on 1 July between the approximate times of 22:04 hours and 22:45 hours;

  (2) if he will list (a) the nature of the sortie, (b) the recorded height, (c) the recorded speed and (d) the home base of the military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton, south Yorkshire on 29 June at approximately (i) 22.01 hours, (ii) 22.09 hours, (iii) 22.17 hours, (iv) 22.20 hours, (v) 22.25 hours, (vi) 22.29 hours and (vii) 22.46 hours.

  Mr. Hanley
  A number of aircraft from RAF Cottesmore were conducting routine low-level training sorties in the area at about the times stated on 29 June and 1 July. We have no reason to believe any of the aircraft flew below the permitted height of 1,000 feet on either of these dates.

  Army Discharges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by rank and by year for the last five years the number of Army personnel who were discharged under section 69 of the Army Act 1955; and what percentage this represents for discharges by year.

  Mr. Hanley
  No discharges from the Army are effected under the Army Act 1955. Officers hold their commissions at the pleasure of the Sovereign, who may take action if the officer is sentenced to dismissal. Soldiers are discharged under Queen's regulations.

  The table shows the number of discharges and resignations following convictions under section 69 of the Army Act 1955. The annual figures are also expressed as a percentage of the total exits from the regular Army.

  hon. Member a copy of the military aircraft accident summary in respect of the air crash in the North sea on 9 July 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The board of inquiry is not expected to be completed for some time. My noble Friend the
  467
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member as soon as a summary of the findings is available.

  Toxic Pollution Syndrome
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military personnel have been monitored or treated for symptoms of combined toxic pollution syndrome following deployment during Operation Granby in 1991; and in which hospitals.

  Mr. Hanley
  The term "combined toxic pollution syndrome" is not recognised in the United Kingdom as a clinical condition. No such figures therefore exist.

  Mine Counter-measure Vessels
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the 50 military tasks ascribed to the United Kingdom forces, and identified in his White Paper, Cm 2270, require a mine counter-measure vessel component; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  Of the 50 military tasks identified in the White Paper, Cm 2270, 10 require a mine counter-measure vessel component.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the studies for a United Kingdom requirement for land attack cruise missiles for the Royal Navy are to include options for dual-capable systems.

  Mr. Hanley
  No. The scope of the study is restricted to conventional options.

  Nuclear Testing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek assistance from the United States in the development of alternative testing technologies to those of underground nuclear testing.

  Mr. Aitken
  Under the United States-United Kingdom 1958 agreement, we co-operate closely with the United States on a wide range of nuclear matters, including alternative testing technologies.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his assessment of the non-proliferation benefits arising from President Clinton's extension of the nuclear testing moratorium.

  Mr. Aitken
  President Clinton has made clear that the extension of the United States moratorium on nuclear testing is intended to promote a comprehensive test ban. Our view is that a comprehensive test ban would not in itself prevent a proliferator from producing and deploying a crude nuclear weapon and from obtaining the materials with which to do this. But associated measures for verification and inspection, if sufficiently rigorous and applicable to the states concerned, might constrain potential proliferators.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the development of a new sub-strategic nuclear warhead can be completed(a) without further nuclear tests and (b) without further improvements to alternative and non-nuclear methods of developing nuclear weapons.
  468
  Mr. Aitken
  Yes.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if it is his policy not to conduct any further nuclear tests unless another state does so first;

  (2) what is his policy on seeking an alternative site at which to conduct United Kingdom nuclear tests;

  (3) what is his policy on conducting any further nuclear tests prior to the non-proliferation treaty extension conference in 1995.

  Mr. Aitken
  We have no plans to conduct nuclear tests anywhere other than at the Nevada test site. There is, of course, no possibility of our conducting further tests at Nevada during the United States moratorium on nuclear testing, which President Clinton has recently extended until October 1994, unless another state tests meanwhile. We would need to consider in the light of the circumstances at the time whether to avail ourselves of any further opportunities to conduct nuclear tests.

  Desert Storm Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what liaison has taken place with the French authorities relating to Desert Storm syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  A request for information on this alleged condition has been made through our Defence attache in Paris to the relevant French authorities. The initial response from the French authorities is that they are unaware of any cases of French service personnel who served in the Gulf exhibiting any unexplained symptoms associated with the alleged condition known as Desert Storm syndrome. Such liaison will continue.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received from(a) service personnel, (b) their families and (c) civilian general practitioners relating to Desert Storm syndrome; and if he will publish those representations he has received from civilian general practitioners relating to Desert Storm syndrome which do not contain confidential information.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received one representation from a serving member of the United Kingdom armed forces and four from, or on behalf of, ex-service personnel who served in the Gulf conflict concerning symptoms which they believe might be connected to the alleged Desert Storm syndrome. No such representations have yet been received that have been made by families of United Kingdom service personnel or by civilian general practitioners.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his staff are currently involved in examining information relating to Desert Storm syndrome.

  Mr. Hanley
  Staff in a number of areas in my Department have been involved in examining information on the alleged Desert Storm syndrome. None have been specifically allocated to the task, however, and all are undertaking this work as part of their normal duties.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, column 203, on what date he began liaising with the United States authorities on the question of Desert Storm syndrome.
  469
  Mr. Hanley
  General liaison on medical matters is maintained continuously but the specific official contact between the Defence medical services and the US authorities on this alleged syndrome took place on 17 June 1993.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has concerning the effect of atmospheric pollution on the health of those personnel involved in Operation Granby.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom service personnel whose respiratory function was most at risk during Operation Granby were those Royal Engineers personnel engaged in clear-up operations near the oil fires. Their respiratory function was measured before they left the United Kingdom and at two-weekly intervals during their assignment in Kuwait. No adverse affects were suffered and no change in respiratory function was seen.

  Naval Dockyards
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the job totals he expects for 1995 and 2000 in naval base staff at Rosyth and Devonport.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will explain the cost adjustment figure of £0·9 million for Rosyth in annex A of his consultative document on future arrangements for ship refitting in the royal dockyards.

  Mr. Aitken
  An adjustment was applied to the two estimates provided by Babcock Thorn Ltd. for its Rosyth proposals, which were expressed in January 1993 prices, to uprate them to March 1993 prices. This brought them in line with the estimate provided by Devonport Management Ltd., so that a like-for-like comparison of the proposals could be undertaken.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the £134·3 million figure of capital costs for Rosyth and £120·6 million for Devonport in annex A of his consultative document on future arrangements for ship refitting in the Royal dockyards.

  Mr. Aitken
  The detailed composition of the proposals put forward by the companies are commercially confidential. However, as part of the overall assessment, the MOD's specialist advisers reviewed the Bills of Quantities submitted by the companies in support of their proposals, and we are confident that the proposals are realistic.

  Married Quarters
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence married quarters were empty for the last date for which figures were available; if he will break down the figure by number of bedrooms; and how many had been empty for over one year.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 March 1993, there were 9,166 vacant married quarters. Of these, 2,153 were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, 2,493 were already allocated to service 470
  families who were due to move in shortly and 870 were being held for agreed deployment or deployments under study. A total of 1,265 of these married quarters have been vacant for over one year. Information on the number of bedrooms is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence married quarters outside secure perimeters are occupied by(a) civilians who have not served in the forces and (b) ex-service personnel; and what is his policy towards the residence in Ministry of Defence married quarters outside secure perimeters by civilians who have not served in the forces.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is my Department's policy that married quarters should be reserved for use by service personnel and their families. In certain circumstances, however, civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence or service-sponsored organisations may also occupy married quarters under licence. Any married quarters which are surplus to long term requirements are sold wherever possible, but my Department does try to lease any properties to local authorities and housing associations where there is no short service requirement.

  Records of civilian occupants of married quarters are not kept in a form which distinguishes between properties inside or outside secure perimeters and between civilians who have previously served in the forces and those who have not.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the estimated cost of rent forgone for the empty Ministry of Defence married quarters in Stillington street, London SW1 over the past four years; what was the cost of providing(a) caretaking and (b) security in this time; and when he expects the works to be complete.

  Mr. Hanley
  The refurbishment contract for the married quarters in Stillington street is expected to complete in April 1994. The estimated cost of rent foregone in the past four years is £200,000. Details of the cost of providing caretaking and security are not readily available and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the leasing of empty Ministry of Defence married quarters to housing associations; what contact his Department has had with housing associations regarding the management of Ministry of Defence estates; how many empty Ministry of Defence married quarters have been leased to housing associations in the last year; and how many empty Ministry of Defence married quarters he proposes to lease to housing associations this year.

  Mr. Hanley
  Empty married quarters, which are temporarily surplus to requirements but for which there is a long-term service need are, wherever possible, offered for leasing to local authorities. In most cases the local authority will take on the lease, but if it does not wish or is unable to do so, it may nominate a housing association to act in its place. My Department will willingly deal with either organisation.

  Two housing associations have assisted us in developing our plans for the future management of service

  471
  married quarters. No empty properties have been leased to housing associations in the last year, but over 900 properties are currently on lease to local authorities or other organisations. Leases of 87 properties to a housing association and 31 to a local authority are under negotiation. Further properties will be offered for leasing if they become available.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence married quarters are surplus to operational requirements at the last date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 31 March 1993, 2,069 service married quarters were surplus to operational requirements. A total of 2,015 of these properties were in the process of being sold.

  Irish Regiments
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many part-time members of the UDR/RIR there were as at 1 June in each year since the UDR was established; and how many recruits joined the regiment each year.

  Mr. Hanley
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Battlefield Artillery Target Engagement System
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to order further quantities of BATES equipment for the Royal Artillery; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to announce that I have approved the placing of an order worth some £60 million with Marconi Radar and Control Systems for additional production of the battlefield artillery target engagement system, known as BATES, which will allow automated control of artillery up to corps level.

  The further equipment now on order will be delivered up to 1996 and will act as a "force multiplier" for the Army's major artillery systems, MLRS and AS90, and link them to surveillance and targeting systems.

  The award of this contract will safeguard 200 jobs at the Marconi sites at Hillend—Fife, Scotland—where most manufacture will take place, and Frimley in Surrey.
  472

  RAF Support Command
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which local travel-to-work area each RAF base in Support Command lies; and what the latest unemployment figures are for each such travel-to-work area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library. A list of the relevant travel-to-work areas (TTWAs), and the RAF Support Command stations they cover follows:

  TTWA

  RAF Support Command station

  Aylesbury and Wycombe

  RAF Halton

  Barnstaple and Ilfracombe

  RAF Chivenor

  Bedford

  RAF Cardington

  Cardiff

  RAF St. Athlan

  Chippenham

  RAF Rudloe Manor

  Doncaster

  RAF Finningley

  Flint and Rhyl

  RAF Sealand

  Gloucester

  RAF Innsworth

  RAF Quedgeley

  Guildford and Aldershot

  RAF Oakhanger

  Heathrow

  RAF Headley Court

  RAF Uxbridge

  Hereford and Leominster

  RAF Hereford

  Hitchin and Letchworth

  RAF Henlow

  Holyhead

  RAF Valley

  Huntingdon and St. Neots

  RAF Brampton

  Lincoln

  RAF Digby

  RAF Scampton

  RAF Swinderby

  Melton Mowbray

  RAF North Lufienham

  Norwich

  RAF Swanton Morley

  Nottingham

  RAF Newton

  Newark

  RAF Syerston

  Newbury

  RAF Thatcham

  Richmondshire

  RAF Carlisle

  Salisbury

  RAF Chilmark

  Shrewsbury

  RAF Shawbury

  Sleaford

  RAF College Cranwell

  Slough

  RAF Bracknell

  Stafford

  RAF Stafford

  Watford and Luton

  RAF Stanbridge

  Weston-super-Mare

  RAF Locking

  Wolverhampton

  RAF Cosford

  York

  RAF Church Fenton

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  473

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many men with wives entitled to category B retirement pensions deferred their retirement in each year since 1988; what was the average amount of their basic retirement pension without the inclusion of increments; and what was the average amount after the addition of such increments;

  (2) how many married women entitled to category B retirement pensions have not received increments to those pensions although their husbands have deferred retirement and earned increments to their own retirement pensions; what are their estimated numbers in each year since 1988; and what is the average amount of additional pension received in those years by their husbands as a consequence of deferring retirement.

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

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which, following the decision of the Social Security Commissioner in 1992 (CP/64/1988), married women entitled to a category B retirement pension will be entitled to increments to that pension when their husbands defer retirement beyond their 65th birthday.

  Project title

  Contractor

  Project cost (£)

  Start date

  Due end date

  Contributions Agency Customer Satisfaction Survey 1993

  British Market Research Bureau International

  151,000

  June 1993

  March 1994

  Incomes and Living Standards of the Elderly in a Comparative Perspective

  Social Policy Research Unit University of York

  79,000

  November 1992

  December 1993

  Benefit Agency National Customer Survey 1992

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  187,000

  April 1992

  August 1993

  Pilot study of Ethnicity and the Income Support Claiming Procedure

  Commission for Racial Equality

  5,000

  October 1992

  April 1994

  Evaluation of Disability Working Allowance

  Policy Studies Institute

  265,000

  February 1993

  December 1995

  Invalidity Benefit Surveys

  Social and Community Planning Research

  240,000

  August 1991

  July 1993

  General Practitioners and Invalidity Benefit

  Social and Community Planning Research

  31,000

  October 1992

  July 1993

  Lung Cancer Risk in Pottery Workers

  London Chest Hospital/Centre for Occupational Health, University of Manchester

  51,000

  October 1992

  November 1993

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Centre for Research in Social Policy, University of Loughborough

  104,000

  June 1992

  July 1993

  Simplified Appeals Submissions

  Policy Studies Institute

  46,000

  November 1992

  July 1993

  Management of Information Resources

  Policy Studies Institute

  79,000

  February 1992

  July 1993

  Research into Hard-to-Place Residents of Resettlement Units: Phase II

  University of Newcastle

  47,000

  October 1990

  July 1993

  Health Care Needs of and Services for Resettlement Unit Customers

  Policy Studies Institute

  50,000

  September 1992

  July 1993

  The Effects of Benefit on Housing Decisions

  Centre for Housing Policy, University of York

  67,000

  November 1992

  October 1993

  Direct Payments from Benefit

  Social Policy Research Unit, University of York

  128,000

  June 1992

  February 1994

  Effects of Changes in Circumstances

  Social Policy Research Unit, University of York

  210,000

  June 1992

  February 1994

  International Comparisons of Housing Benefit

  Centre for Housing Policy, University of York

  11,000

  February 1993

  July 1993

  Family Credit Follow Up

  Policy Studies Institute

  71,000

  November 1992

  December 1993

  474
  Mr. Hague
  A married woman can earn increments to her category B retirement pension when her husband defers his category A retirement pension beyond his 65th birthday provided she is not, at the same time, receiving one of a specified list of "excluding" benefits and her husband is not receiving an increase of such a benefit for her. On 12 June 1992 the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier decision of the social security commissioner that graduated retirement benefit (GRB) was not an excluded benefit. Therefore the receipt by a married woman of GRB did not prevent her earning increments. Arrangements have been made to adjust pension rates and pay arrears in affected cases. The regulations were changed on 5 August 1992 and from that date GRB is an excluding benefit.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each research project his Department currently funds with(a) the institution in which it is based, (b) the funds provided by his Department, (c) the number of staff involved and (d) the start and end date.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 5 July 1993]: The table lists projects which are currently being funded or part-funded by the Department, together with the organisation conducting the work. There are currently 18 research staff in the Department.
  475

  Project title

  Contractor

  Project cost (£)

  Start date

  Due end date

  National Child Development Study—5th Stage

  Social Statistics Unit, City University

  1175,000

  June 1989

  July 1993

  National Child Development Study Analysis—Wave 5 data only

  Policy Studies Institute

  45,000

  April 1992

  August 1993

  Family Credit and the Self Employed

  Social Policy Research Unit, University of York

  134,000

  March 1991

  July 1993

  British Household Panel Study

  Economic and Social Research Council, University of Essex

  2125,000

  April 1990

  March 1995

  Comparison of Child Support in the European Community

  University of York

  91,532

  May 1992

  July 1993

  Persons Abroad Legislation

  Brunei University

  70,000

  July 1991

  July 1993

  Employers Attitudes to Family Credit

  Institute for Manpower Studies, University of Sussex

  116,000

  March 1993

  April 1994

  2nd Lone Parent Survey

  Policy Studies Institute

  123,000

  November 1992

  December 1993

  British Social Attitude Survey

  Social and Community Planning Research

  360,000

  January 1991

  December 1994

  Relate Information Database—Follow Up

  D. Shapiro/M. Barkham

  2,500

  March 1993

  December 1993

  Benefit Information Needs of Lone Parents

  Centre for Research in Social Policy, University of Loughborough

  36,000

  May 1993

  October 1993

  Evaluation of the Newcastle In-Work Benefits Initiative

  Business and Community Planning Research

  410,000

  March 1993

  November 1993

  Survey of First Time Customers

  Social Policy Research Unit, University of York

  111,000

  May 1993

  March 1994

  Developing Local Office Customer Satisfaction Surveys—Pilot Work

  Public Attitude Surveys Ltd.

  11,000

  June 1993

  August 1993

  Family Credit/Benefit News Campaign Evaluation

  Research Surveys of Great Britain

  34,000

  April 1993

  August 1993

  1 DSS contribution to larger study.

  2 £25,000 per annum for five years—uprated by Treasury inflator. DSS contribution to larger study.

  3 Over three years (1991–94 (not 1992)) DSS contribution to larger study.

  4 DSS contribution—this is a collaborative project with Newcastle city challenge and the Employment Service.

  War Pensions (Karen People)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on behalf of the Karen people of Burma regarding the non-payment of war pensions to ex-service men who fought for Britain.

  Mr. Hague
  None. If the hon. Member has a particular case—or cases—in mind, perhaps he could write to me supplying the relevant details.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will define the circumstances in which a recipient of housing benefit is entitled to a special personal allowance as a result of being legally married to more than one partner, as specified in the "Guide to Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit", booklet RR2.

  Mr. Burt
  A recipient of housing benefit is entitled to a special personal allowance if he is a member of a valid polygamous marriage and has more than one of his partners sharing his household.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of reducing the housing benefit taper from 65 per cent. to 50 per cent.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost is estimated to be £500 million per annum.*

  Note:
  476
  *This estimate is based on data drawn from the 1989–90–91 Family Expenditure Surveys and modelled at 1993–94 prices and benefit levels.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of housing benefit receive a special personal allowance as a result of being legally married to more than one partner as specified in the "Guide to Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit", booklet RR2.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will explain the basis on which students are excluded from housing benefit; and what provision is made to enable students unable to find paid employment during the vacations to pay the continued costs of housing.

  Mr. Burt
  In general it is the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide support for students, not the social security system, and we have no plans to change this. Housing benefit is available during the summer vacation and also throughout the course to vulnerable students such as lone parents, those who are disabled, and those with dependent children. In addition non-student partners can claim on behalf of the couple if they satisfy the normal qualifying conditions. The Government have increased the full-year support available from the education grant and from student loans by nearly 40 per cent. compared with the support available from the grant alone in 1989. Students in particular financial need may seek help from the access funds.
  477

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will break down the figure for those persons in receipt of invalidity benefit in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefits Agency district by the nature of the disability.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each year since the inception of the scheme the number of people of retirement age who have continued to draw invalidity benefit.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 25 June at column 323 for information about the numbers of invalidity benefit claimants over state pension age.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what saving in expenditure by his Department would have resulted from abolishing the earnings-related additional pension for all new invalidity benefit claims for the year 1992–93; and what savings he estimates would be made in 1994–95.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Estimated savings

  £ million

  1992–93

  75

  1994–95

  365

  Note: Estimates are expressed in cash terms and take account of associated changes in income-related benefit expenditure.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the growth in invalidity benefit payments since 1978–79 is explained by demographic change.

  Mr. Scott
  Information is not available in the form

  However, around 2 per cent. of the growth in the invalidity benefit caseload during the period May 1979 to March 1992 can be accounted for by changes in the size and structure (ie age and sex profile) of the population of Great Britain.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many males and females in receipt of invalidity benefit in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefits Agency district are aged(a) under 30, (b) 31 to 44, (c) 45 to 55 and (d) over 55 years.

  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many males and females in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Benefits Agency district were in receipt of invalidity benefit for each year since 1987.
  478
  Mr. Scott
  I understand from Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that the information is not available in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Polish Forces (Pensions)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people are currently in receipt of payments under the pensions (Polish forces) scheme.

  (2) if he will list for each of the last five years (a) the number of applications made to his Department for pensions under the pensions (Polish forces) scheme and (b) the number of such applications which were successful;

  (3) what is the annual cost to public funds of payments made under the pensions (Polish forces) scheme.

  Mr. Hague
  At 30 June 1993 there were 2,221 people in receipt of payments under the pensions (Polish forces) scheme.

  The number of applications for pensions under the scheme was as follows:

  Year

  1988

  85 applications

  1989

  103 applications

  1990

  126 applications

  1991

  142 applications

  1992

  614 applications

  Information on the number of successful applications and on the annual cost of payments under the scheme is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Volunteers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to implement the increase in the notice period for a volunteer receiving benefits from 24 hours to 48 hours.

  Mr. Burt
  The amending regulation to increase the notice period for unemployed volunteers to 48 hours will come into effect in the middle of August.

  Benefit Abuse
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce abuse of social security by people from abroad: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Yesterday I laid before Parliament, regulations to prevent certain persons from abroad being able to claim income support under the income support urgent case rules. They will come into force on 2 August. Most persons from abroad are admitted to the country on condition that they do not become a charge on public funds. This means that they should not receive income support. At present a minority of these people abuse the conditions of their leave to remain here which these changes will prevent. I expect to save about £17 million a year in benefit on the 10,000 persons annually who abuse the present system. Asylum seekers are not affected by this change and will continue to receive benefit while their applications for asylum are being processed by the Home Office.
  479

  Mortgage Support
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to limit the availability of income support mortgage interest on very high mortgages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  Yesterday I laid before Parliament regulations which will limit to £150,000 the amount of loan capital on which income support will pay interest. This change will come into force on 2 August. The regulations also provide for the limit to be reduced to £125,000 from 11 April 1994, and provide protection for existing claimants. Together with these regulations is a report by the Social Security Advisory Committee, CM(2272). These new arrangements are based on our view that people with mortgages, regardless of their loan commitment, should make arrangements to provide for themselves in times of difficulty. The limits will be kept under review in the future.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish his annual report on the social fund and the social fund commissioner's annual report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before Parliament his annual report for 1992–93 (Cm. 2274). Copies have been placed in the Library. The report records that, for the first time, the annual total gross expenditure on all social fund payments exceeded £400 million—a doubling of expenditure since the first full year of the scheme. This includes nearly 1·8 million non-repayable grants and interest-free loans worth more than £314 million; and maternity, funeral and cold weather payments worth £87 million.

  Now that the fund has been operating for a number of years, we are reaching a position where we can begin to assess with some confidence how it is working. As the annual report says, we have taken note of the research by York university's social policy research unit (SPRU), along with a number of other reports and our own close monitoring of the fund. We have seen no evidence so far to alter our belief that the basic principles of the discretionary scheme are right. Indeed, there is much in the latest report to confirm that the fund is working very effectively as intended in support of the wider pattern of social security benefits. Against this backdrop and in the light of the SPRU and Social Security Advisory Committee reports, we will be continuing to evaluate the effectiveness of the fund and to introduce operational improvements as required.

  For the current year, we have increased the net discretionary budget by £5 million. This has enabled us to raise the gross budget by £44 million since April last year. Overall, since the discretionary fund began. the gross budget has increased by some 70 per cent. This substantial growth in funding demonstrates our continuing commitment in this traditionally difficult area of social security provision.

  The social fund commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.
  480

  Putney Royal Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what correspondence the Minister for Disabled People has had about removing the inscription, "Royal Hospital for Incurables", from the facade of Putney Royal hospital; what action he has taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  While I have seen copies of some correspondence about this matter, I have not been involved directly since this is primarily a matter between the hospital and the planning department of the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Child Support Agency to collect data on the numbers of parents who use the agency on a voluntary as well as a compulsory basis.

  Mr. Burt
  I am informed by Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the agency's chief executive, that the agency already collects data on the number of applications received from parents who are not in receipt of benefit and who choose whether they wish to use the agency's services.

  As the agency has, however, been operational for only three months reliable figures are not yet available for publication.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases, in the last 12 months the Child Support Agency has been involved with the use of DNA genetic fingerprinting methods to establish the paternity of a child during the pursuance of a maintenance claim; and if he will separately distinguish England and Wales.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mrs. R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 12 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of cases in the last 12 months in which the Agency has been involved with the use of DNA genetic fingerprinting in order to establish paternity.

  The Agency is not directly involved in the process of DNA testing but may in disputed cases apply to the courts for a declaration of paternity. In such cases the Agency supplies conventional evidence in support of its application and the question of DNA testing will not normally arise except at the suggestion of the court and with the agreement of all parties. Where the Agency meets the cost of those fees it will seek recovery from any court costs awarded in its favour.

  Figures for the period 1 April 1992–31 March 1993 are not yet available, but in the year ending March 1992, DNA testing was an issue in less than 1 per cent. of the 1,000 cases in which the Department made application to the courts for a declaration of paternity. I am afraid that I do not have a breakdown of figures between England and Wales.

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

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the maximum number of
  481
  assessments which the Child Support Agency can carry out on an individual in any year for which a fee of £44 is charged;

  (2) what has been the total income of the Child Support Agency from assessment fees collected since its establishment.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mrs. R. Hepplewhite to Mr. Gareth Wardell, dated 12 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the income collected by the Agency in assessment fees and the number of maintenance assessments provided for the sum of £44.

  The Agency has to date collected a total of £13,000 in fees, but figures are not yet available as to fees charged for assessment and fees charged for collection.

  The annual assessment fee is payable on the date the first maintenance application is made, and at yearly intervals thereafter. There is no restriction placed on the number of assessments carried out in any given year and no additional sum will be levied over the annual fee.

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

  Care Benefits
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disability living allowance mobility component claimants have successfully claimed care components after their 66th birthday.

  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 Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 12 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many disability living allowance mobility component claimants have successfully claimed care components after their 66th birthday.

  Up to 28 February 1993 the total number of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) mobility component recipients that have successfully claimed the care component on or after their 66th birthday is 7,420. A more up to date figure is not available as numbers are only collated quarterly and information about the last quarter is not yet to hand.

  The figure provided excludes any DLA mobility component recipient over the age of 66 who may have received the care component subsequent to either a review of the original decision or upon appeal. Statistics for these two types of occurrence are not available.

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

  Disability
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will include, when notifying claimants of their entitlement to disability living allowance and 482
  attendance allowance, information about the entitlement to extras such as income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  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 Mr. M. Bichard to Ms Ann Coffey dated 12 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking if he will include, when notifying claimants of their entitlement to DLA and AA, information about the entitlement to extras such as income support, housing benefit and community charge benefit.

  When a customer is advised of their entitlement to Disability Living Allowance (DLA) they also receive a copy of form DLA 95. This form advises them of their possible title to other benefits. Amongst other benefits outlined in the DLA 95 are Income Support, Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit.

  Similarly, a customer receiving an award notification for Attendance Allowance (AA) will also receive form DS 668. This provides equivalent information to that contained in the DLA 95.

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

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications he has received for ex gratia payments resulting from delays in(a) disability living allowance, (b) attendance allowance and (c) mobility allowance; how many claims were successful; and what total ex gratia payments have been made for each benefit.

  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 Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 12 July 1993:

  As Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency it is my responsibility to answer questions about relevant operational matters. I am therefore replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how many applications he has received for ex gratia payments resulting from delays in (a) Disability Living Allowance (DLA), (b) Attendance Allowance (AA) and (c) Mobility Allowance (Moba); how many claims were successful; and what total ex gratia payments have been made for each benefit.

  The information requested is not recorded in the format required. I am therefore not able to give you a breakdown by benefit. I can confirm, however, that for the period 9 July 1992 to 7 July 1993 out of 480 applications for ex gratia payments received, in respect of all three benefits, 208 were subsequently withdrawn, 96 were refused and 176 were successful. The total amount paid comes to some £9,200.

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

  Maintenance Allowance
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what plans he has to change the process of maintenance allowance assessments to ensure that
  483
  mothers who are out of work and wishing to receive an assessment do not have to wait longer than mothers who are in work.

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 6 July 1993, column 125]: The following information was incorrect:
  484
  The Child Support Agency is introducing the new child support maintenance arrangements from scratch and it would have been unrealistic to take on cases over a four-year period.

  The Correct information is as follows:

  The Child Support Agency is introducing the new child support maintenance arrangements from scratch and it would have been unrealistic to take on all cases immediately. Take-on will therefore be phased over a four-year period.

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.

El Salvador: Elections
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ask the European Commission to encourage the Government of El Salvador to promote effective democratic elections in March 1994.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we regularly discuss with the other EC member states and with the European Commission means of promoting democracy in El Salvador. We welcome the extension of the mandate of the UN observer mission in El Salvador (ONUSAL) to cover preparations for the March 1994 elections.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that welcome news, does she appreciate that the whole peace process rests on there being fair and free elections next year in which everyone can have confidence? If, as seems possible, something like 25 per cent. of the electorate are effectively disenfranchised, the whole process will lack legitimacy. Can the noble Baroness impress that on her colleagues so that the monitoring does not simply take place on the day but while there is still time to do something about it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the large monitoring team to be deployed by ONUSAL should ensure that the elections are free and fair and that all necessary preparatory arrangements are made. The legislative elections of 1991 were judged to have been free and fair according to international observers. ONUSAL is working with the electoral authorities in El Salvador to ensure that the problems to which the noble and learned Lord referred are, as far as possible, overcome before the elections in March 1994.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the noble Baroness noticed the published estimates that only 50,000 people will have been registered by the closing date of 13th December? Will she draw to the attention of her colleagues the possibility of the electoral process being conducted actively, particularly in the rural areas, instead of waiting for voters to come forward to ask to be registered? Would it not be better to have people going out, as they do in this country, in order to put the electors on the register?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, ONUSAL estimates that about one-third of potential voters are not included on the electoral roll. It will be working throughout the country to improve public awareness
118
of the registration process and to verify that the authorities are taking correct steps to include all qualified citizens on the electoral register.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following on what the noble Lord asked concerning the electoral register, can the noble Baroness tell the House what steps the Government are taking, either through the UN or the European Community, to establish UN monitors on the ground in the election process to begin registering people here and now? I do not believe that the noble Baroness's answer made that entirely clear.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the UN observer mission is a large one and its life has been prolonged to cover the elections. If we consider nearer the time that we should send an observer to the legislative elections, any observers we or the EC send would be working closely with the United Nations.

Bosnia: Peace Plan Initiative
2.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the latest international peace plan for Bosnia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the latest peace plan for Bosnia Herzegovina is a Serbian and Croatian initiative, to which the Bosnian presidency is now considering its response. The co-chairmen are using their good offices to encourage all three parties to engage in serious negotiations.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Are the British Government prepared to accept the division of Bosnia into three or more parts? If that is to be part of the agreement, as now seems likely, will the international community have the difficult task of policing the implementation of an agreed plan?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. I point out to my noble friend that it is not for the UK Government to accept; it is for the three parties to accept whatever peaceful plan can be arrived at. One of the difficulties has been that the plan currently being put forward has come from just two of the three parties. The third party, which is the Moslems or the Bosnian presidency, has not yet sat down to discuss it. Even if there were an internationally acceptable agreement there would be the need to go back to the Security Council if the international community were to be involved in monitoring and implementing that settlement. But I fear that we are some days—if not some weeks—away from that at this stage.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the UN policy of providing safe havens has not been a success? Does she agree that the havens are not safe for the peace-keepers, the aid workers or the civilian population, with continuous shelling, frequent sniping and the collapse of the infrastructure? If she accepts, as surely she must, that that policy has been

119
a tragic failure, what proposals will the UK Government be making in the Security Council to replace it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, I must point out to the noble Baroness that they were never safe havens in the sense that we were able to implement a safe havens policy in the Kurdish areas of Iraq. The safe areas were intended to provide greater protection to the population in the most vulnerable Moslem centres. Some have begun to give some respite, but others, as the noble Baroness says, have not been a success. But we all know well why that is so. Until there is a lasting settlement, many of those areas will not be respected by one party or another. The safe areas idea was never a policy for the long term, but if the troop and equipment requirements necessary to implement safe areas can be met and the parties to the conflict will allow them to be met, we may have some chance of making them a success. The NATO planning continues to provide air support. That planning is well advanced.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there was a possibility of the safe havens proposal being successful when it was first suggested by my right honourable friend about 18 months ago? The fact is that the safe havens were established much too late. Does she also agree that it is high time that we had a full debate on this problem? It is impossible to discuss this tragic situation constructively or sensibly by Question and Answer or by comments and Statements.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the frustration which the noble Lord expresses, but I must advise him that at the time that his right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party proposed such an idea there was no chance of actually implementing it. I do not believe that the noble Lord is right on that point. The situation in Bosnia is very different from that which existed where we did succeed in having safe havens. I believe that we shall succeed in giving the protection which we want to give to the Moslem people in Bosnia only as an international community and provided that greater progress is made on an agreement. That is what we are working full out to achieve as is the noble Lord, Lord Owen, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, knows.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the advantage of the present proposals is that they are proposals for discussions between the parties concerned and that we must wish them well because that is the only kind of settlement which has any chance of sticking?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would be a good deal more encouraged if I could see that the Moslems in Bosnia were ready to consider a response. The Bosnian presidency have met a number of times in the past three weeks to consider their response. I understand that they will now inform the cochairmen, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and Mr.
120
Stoltenberg, of their Bosnian counter-proposals, but we can only hope that that happens soon because the sooner that the talking continues, the more chance there may be of some agreement. In that sense, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is right.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble Baroness and to our troops in Bosnia for their tremendous work. I should like to ask her about the desperately urgent situation at present in Sarajevo and in Gorazde where water supplies have been cut off and where I understand that the first incidences of serious numbers of typhoid cases are emerging. Can the noble Baroness say whether the United Kingdom Government can make urgent representations about trying to get a fresh water supply to the people of Sarajevo who have consistently supported the idea of a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she has said. Perhaps I may advise her that in my discussions yesterday morning with Mrs. Ogata in London, I announced specifically £6.5 million for infrastructure work which will enable our British engineers who are in Bosnia now, keeping the coal-mines going, opening up new seams and getting the power supplies going, to do the very things for which she has asked. We have been so engaged for some nine months or more and shall continue to be engaged for as long as we can reasonably protect our people who are bravely working there.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not time that we actually faced up to reality? What we are looking at is a Serb and Croat carve-up of the Moslem areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We must either take it upon ourselves in the whole of the Western world or the United Nations to protect the Moslems and to stop what is happening or we should stand aside and not interfere. What we cannot do is what we are doing at the moment, which is taking the worst of all possible measures by prolonging a siege when it would have been over, and prolonging the discomfort and all the rest. People may well moan, but it seems to me to be historic. Is my noble friend not aware that that is the case? That is what has happened.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend has it wrong. There is no way that the Western world could have stood aside and denied humanitarian aid to those people. Just going along with the two stronger protagonists out of three strong protagonists will not bring peace to the Balkans. Had we not taken the action that we did, I fear that the conflict would have spread even further.
Lord Carver: My Lords, do the Government believe that, whether peace is obtained on the basis of the Vance-Owen plan, the present plan, or any other plan, Bosnia-Herzegovina is capable of being maintained as a viable, independent state?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is almost impossible to say whether Bosnia-Herzegovina will be a viable entity in the future. What I know is

121
that all the work put into the Vance-Owen peace plan has formed a sensible basis for some of the current negotiations. We have a great deal more information about the area as a result of that work than we would otherwise have. We must now involve all three parties in a plan to which they will stick. I do not give up hope of that. There are some positive signs. The discussions are still continuing. We shall do all that we can to bring about peace.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while we must hope that the antagonists will reach agreement this time, will my noble friend convey to her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary the appreciation of some of us of his patience and his warnings t hat there is a limit to the forbearance of the United Nations which is at present providing humanitarian aid, protecting it, and saving lives?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend, and of course I shall do as he asks.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, will the Minister confirm a report in The Times today that there are only seven UN monitors in Gorazde and that the UN Secretary-General is trying, but has been unsuccessful, to raise a further 7,500 troops for UN work in Bosnia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot confirm the exact situation or numbers in Gorazde at the moment. I am aware that the Secretary-General has been successful in raising some of the troops, as I said in answer to a Question in the House last week.

Dementia Sufferers: Carers
2.52 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the report of the Alzheimer's Disease Society on Deprivation and Dementia, drawing attention to the needs of carers of people with dementia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we welcome the report Deprivation and Dementia published recently by the Alzheimer's Disease Society. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health will be meeting representatives from the Alzheimer's Disease Society on 27th July to discuss the findings contained in its report.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Is she aware that if the state were to pay for the duties carried out by the carers, that would amount to about £10 billion per annum? The carers relieve the state of that burden. In those circumstances, is it fair that 41 per cent. of the carers have had to draw on their private resources, and take out mortgages or private loans to discharge that responsibility; and that more than 60 per cent. have taken early retirement from their employment to undertake those caring responsibilities? Is it fair that such a situation should prevail?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's question, the Government are well aware of the enormous contribution that carers make towards looking after the more vulnerable members in our society. With regard to the second part of the question, social security benefits have been increased markedly and the new disability living allowance extended so that the number of people receiving help has risen from 360,000 to 2 million. The Government also introduced the carers' premium in 1990, and are well aware of the financial situation of many of those who look after vulnerable people.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the methodology and the statistical conclusions are correct, it means that there are half a million sufferers from this terrible disease? If that is so, is it not unacceptable that 46 per cent. of the carers, who are over 80, are having to devote more than 80 hours a week to the care of their relatives?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate that many people care for elderly relatives who would not chose to do so if there were alternatives; but we should not lose sight of those who want to undertake that task and who do it freely and with enormous self-sacrifice in some cases. But the department has recognised the need of carers. We support them. We now give more than £2 million in grants to national voluntary organisations to help carers, and the National Users and Carers Group has been set up to give Department of Health Ministers feedback about the experience of users and carers of the community care reforms. We have also provided £565 million to local authorities for their new responsibilities under the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that caring for a relative who suffers from Alzheimer's Disease is probably one of the most difficult forms of caring. Most sufferers cannot be left for even five minutes, because they are unpredictable. One does not know what they will do. I should like to ask the Government to concentrate upon ensuring that carers are given respite; that they can have time off every week; that they can have a week off occasionally. They do not mind caring, but they cannot go on 24 hours out of 24.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. That is why local authorities have increased their day places specifically for people with mental illness by 70 per cent. since 1979, and local residential places for people with a mental illness have risen by 23 per cent. since 1979.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are patchy instances where respite care is not being provided for such people? I think the report shows that some people are being asked to pay £3,000 or £4,000 a year for respite care for their relatives, which they can ill-afford. Will she please ensure that respite care is provided over the whole country and not just in certain parts?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is an important issue. The Social Services Inspectorate will take that into account when they review the National Health Service and Community Care Act.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some people with Alzheimer's disease are single women without carers? Loneliness can be a great problem, especially in rural areas where there are not even day centres for them to attend.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, yes, I accept that this is a challenging area, and that there are people who need further help. I believe that I have illustrated to your Lordships this afternoon that an enormous amount of help is being given, although I appreciate that it does not cover all the needs and demands of the population.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the estimates made in 1990 by the Social Security Select Committee in another place that carers save the state £24 billion per annum? Will she draw that fact to the attention of her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and rely upon him to draw his own conclusions?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as I believe I have said, many people chose to care for their elderly relatives. One should in no way diminish their choice and self-sacrifice.

BBC Radio 5: Future
3 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the BBC's proposal to introduce a rolling news programme on Radio 5, thus displacing sports coverage and programmes for young people.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for the BBC to decide what to broadcast on the frequencies which are assigned to it. The Government would not seek to intervene in editorial decisions of that kind.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not unexpected Answer. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister intervened recently to save "News at Ten"? Is it not just as important that we should save sports coverage and programmes for young people on Radio 5? Is the Minister aware that Radio 5 currently attracts audiences of 5 million people and that the figure is still rising? Radio 5 has been extremely successful because of its uninterrupted sports coverage as well its programmes for young people? In its document Extending Choice the BBC says that it seeks to reflect all dimensions of both popular and minority cultures. Would not the introduction of a rolling news programme, which would displace the programmes I have mentioned, be a negation of that policy?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am not aware of any proposals by the BBC to abandon sports coverage or merge sports programmes with news services. I must emphasise that no decision has yet been taken. Since the debate in your Lordships' House last month the
124
BBC has indicated that it will return to square one on the subject of the news network. I understand that the BBC will look at every frequency and every option and that the review is unlikely to be completed before the autumn.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not a fact that we are sick to death of the same news being broadcast every hour? Even at the beginning of the war that was abandoned after some time because it was merely a repetition of what was known. There are many better ways—and sport is one of them—in which the nation can be entertained. We do not want current affairs tacked on to a little news. To have lengthy comment about all sorts of matters, with various people—politicians and so on—giving us the benefit of their views, is extremely boring compared with the entertainment which can be provided.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for the BBC to determine what programmes to broadcast in order to fulfil its public service obligations. I understand that the BBC carried out research which indicated support for the proposed news service. Consultation is a matter which we are considering in our current review of the BBC.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the prime movers for a rolling news programme are an extremely vocal minority called the chattering classes? It would be to lose a sense of balance if their influence were allowed to outweigh the opinion of a great mass of people who much prefer sport and of the young people who prefer the programmes provided for them. We need to be very careful.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I know that the BBC is aware of the strong feelings in your Lordships' House. The fact that the BBC is reviewing its proposal shows that it has taken note. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, the distinguished vice-chairman of the BBC, has also taken note of your Lordships' comments today.
Lord HowellMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the excellence of BBC coverage of sport is unsurpassed throughout the world?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Howell: We should pay tribute to the BBC's coverage of sport both on television and on Radio 5. However, every time there are new controllers and directors, they want to mess about with programmes when the country as a whole would prefer that they stay as they are. As regards radio in particular, blind people depend a great deal upon sporting commentaries. Many of us, as we travel in our cars, appreciate those radio commentaries. Although editorial matters are for the BBC, will the Minister do the House the courtesy of telling the corporation to stop messing about with programmes that we all wish to see continue?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, makes some extremely conservative remarks. The BBC is giving up two medium wave frequencies to

125
new independent national services. The BBC is to use the remaining six networks in the way that it considers best. We believe that simulcasting is considered to be a rather wasteful use of the frequencies which are available, but it is for the BBC to decide what it should broadcast.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people would recommend to the Government that they keep out of the issue and let the listeners make their feelings known in the many ways open to them?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. I agree with him totally.
Lord Parry: My Lords, can the House assume that the Minister has seen the Order Paper of another place? While he may refuse to be too disciplined by it, does he understand that more than 151 Members have tabled views similar to those expressed in this House? Surely that will persuade the BBC that there is a united front against the proposed change.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am aware of the Order Paper in another place. As I say, the BBC is reviewing its proposals.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large percentage of the BBC's listening audience is made up of hospital patients and the long-term sick? If you have had your gall bladder removed, the last thing you want to hear about is the Prime Minister's popularity rating. Will the Minister accept that most hospital patients are more interested in whether my favourite football team, Cowdenbeath, has just defeated Brechin City?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sure that if one is in that unfortunate position, it is important that one has a choice between Radio 1, which plays pop music, Radio 2, which plays light music, Radio 3, which plays classical music, Radio 4, which broadcasts news and drama and Radio 5, which broadcasts sport and education.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Viscount not aware that his first Answer was correct and that the views expressed since confirm his original proposition that these matters are best left to the BBC?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for his support.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister not impressed by the almost unanimous view expressed by the House? Will he not agree—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, does—that Radio 5 has been remarkably successful? Its main characteristic is its sustained and uninterrupted broadcasting of major sporting events. It would be extremely regrettable if, for example, at the moment when the England football team were about to score a goal in an international—perhaps its only goal for some months past or ahead—the coverage were interrupted by what
126
some dogmatists believed to be important news such as a mundane ministerial resignation announced from Downing Street.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, makes an interesting point as regards the importance of sport on the radio. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, listened carefully to what he said.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, 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 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill will be taken.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Economic and monetary union]:
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 1, line 24, after ("unless") insert ("the principle of moving to the third stage and ").
The noble Lord said: My 'Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. These amendments are highly focused and their effect may not necessarily he immediately obvious. Whatever one's views about the desirability of the objectives of the treaty, we are all at one as regards our anxiety about the ambiguity caused by its extremely poor drafting. We suspect that some of that may be because the drafting was deliberately arrived at in an effort to obscure meaning since the parties to the treaty wanted it to maintain different meanings. Nevertheless, that is a problem.
On 23rd June my noble friend Lord Caithness said:
"Before commenting in detail on some of the issues already raised, I should like to remind the Committee of two fundamental points. First, as my noble friend Lord Boardman said—and I emphasise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Monson—we are not deciding in this Bill whether or not the United Kingdom should participate in a single currency or join the third stage of economic and monetary union. Both the treaty and the Bill provide watertight legal protection for that decision to be taken nearer the time and for Parliament to be fully involved".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 375.]
I think that the words, "to be fully involved", are worthy of note. We were not given a guarantee that Parliament will take the decision, but that it will be fully involved.
I do not know about the experience of noble Lords in this House, but I suspect that many of them will find themselves in the same position as I have often been in. For example, I fully involve my family in decisions which are taken but, at the end of the day, they may

127
feel that I, and not my family, took the decision. There is a distinction to be observed here. After all, most employers these days also uphold the belief that they should fully involve their employees in decisions about the business. However, that does not mean that the employees take those decisions. I hope that my noble friend will clarify that point in his response and that he will be able to assure us that what he meant to say was that Parliament "will take the decision".
However, there is something more than that in the amendments. Perhaps I may refer noble Lords to Clause 2 on page 1 of the Bill which makes the point:
"No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Community that the United Kingdom intends to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union (in accordance with the Protocol …) unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament".
That is perhaps not quite accurate. The amendment seeks to insert after "unless" the words,
"the principle of moving to the third stage and".
That would make it plain that what was to be discussed at the time was not the implementation of a decision or the manner in which we should move to the third stage, but a question of actually discussing the principle and voting upon the principle of whether the United Kingdom should move to the third stage of the Bill.
I believe that that is the Government's intention. Nonetheless, I take it that they will resist the amendment on the grounds that all amendments to the Bill are to be resisted because it would be administratively untidy if the Bill were to be returned to the other place with an amendment. However, I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure me that the Government intend that Parliament shall take the decision and that Parliament shall take that decision on the principle and not merely on the manner in which the United Kingdom might enter the third stage of monetary union. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is useful that the amendment has been tabled. I suppose that it is just a matter of wording. However, before speaking to the amendment, I must remind noble Lords that I favour going into EMU and wish that we were debating the principle of it now rather than waiting. I do not believe that the country has gained from the Prime Minister's opt-out. I believe that we should be taking such a decision at this stage. I only say that to remind noble Lords of where I stand.
I must admit that I am not an expert on such matters. I interpreted the Bill as it appears before us as saying precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, wants to happen. It seems to me that the Prime Minister in negotiating the opt-out, much as I do not approve of it, must have been negotiating something which enables a decision to be taken. In so far as it will have to come—as I understand it will —before both this House and another place, then it must be at that point that the central decision will be taken. In other words, my interpretation, both in terms of what the Prime Minister said and what the Bill says, is that Parliament will be fully involved. It will not be a
128
matter of anything going through on the nod. However, that does not mean that the Prime Minister will not use his majority if he happens to have it by some miracle at that time, or that he will not do so if he happens to be Prime Minister at the time.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is right to say that that is what we should be debating. I assume that the Minister will take the line that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said he would; namely, that he does not want the Bill amended. Therefore, the least we require from him is for him to confirm that the Bill actually says what many of us have already assumed it says. However, if it does not mean that—which I would find hard to believe—I would have to say that the Minister's right honourable friend the Prime Minister has misled not merely the House but also the country as to what it is that he thought he negotiated at Maastricht. In this case, I hope that it is just a matter of the Minister clarifying what is in the Bill so that, whether or not we like the outcome, we can all agree that that is what the Bill says.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tebbit in moving the amendment quoted what I said in Hansard on 23rd June at col. 375. I had hoped that my noble friend would continue and quote what I said later. Perhaps I may draw his attention to my remarks at col. 378 of Hansard where I said:
"any such decision will be taken by means of a full Act of Parliament".
Similarly, I refer my noble friend to col. 381 of Hansard where I stated:
"It will be a matter for both Houses of Parliament because it would require a full Act of Parliament to implement".
I also refer my noble friend to col. 382 of Hansard which reads:
"There will be an Act of Parliament".
Then, further on, in col. 382 I said:
"they will bring a Bill before Parliament to be discussed in the usual way".
I thought that it was very clear from what I said in Committee that the word "involvement" included a full discussion in both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, unless both Houses gave their approval to what was before them it would not be an Act of Parliament.
I understand what my noble friend is trying to achieve by way of his amendment. I am grateful to him for tabling it. But if a government wished to participate in Stage 3 and, therefore, introduced a Bill into another place, surely the government of the day would be indicating their support in principle for the matter of a single monetary policy. I put it to my noble friend that it would be rather ludicrous for a government who were against a single policy to introduce a Bill in order to get to a single monetary policy.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response. However, it is clear to me that I am not putting the point with sufficient clarity. I fear that that is a habit of mine in debate with my noble friend Lord Caithness. As the House may recollect, on the last occasion that we discussed such matters (at cols. 379 and 380 of Hansard) I asked my noble friend a question which I should like, politely, to put to him

129
again today. I asked whether it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we wished to see Stage 3 in operation—not, noble Lords will notice, whether we wished to take part in it, but whether it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Stage 3 is desirable and whether they support the objective of the other 11 forming a union of a single currency.
Quite clearly, I was unable to get that question through to my noble friend because he did not reply to it. Perhaps I may now try again to make my question clear. If it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we should enter Stage 3, I do not doubt that they will bring forward a Bill with the intention that it should be enacted in both Houses of Parliament.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there will not be a great deal of difficulty about a majority because of course the Opposition parties are involved in this conspiracy up to their necks. They will bail the Government out as regards anything the Government may do to implement such a policy. The point that I sought to establish, preferably in legislative form but, if not, through the words of my noble friend, is that this Bill and this treaty do not in any way constitute, and cannot constitute, an obligation upon Her Majesty's Government in principle that the United Kingdom should enter the third stage.
I would prefer that point to be made clear in legislation but it is not clear in legislation. There are many people, not least lawyers and a good many economists, who believe that if a single currency is created we shall find ourselves drawn into it either by the legislation and the treaty or indeed—I know those on the Liberal Benches take this view as well as those on the Labour Benches—willy-nilly because we shall be attached to it, like a tin can on the tail of a dog, by the provisions of the treaty. I hope I have made myself sufficiently clear.
I want my noble friend to say that it is the judgment of the Law Officers that this treaty cannot be construed as an acceptance in principle of entry into the third stage; that the support of Her Majesty's Government for the concept of economic and monetary union does not constitute a decision in principle; and that when the time comes the decision in principle will be put to Parliament and we shall not have such a thing as the use of the prerogative to take the executive action and for Parliament then to be told that it will be fully involved in the process of putting that decision into effect.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to the further supplementary question of my noble friend. It appears that for many years we have not misunderstood each other at all and we have worked closely together. I was saddened to learn that suddenly there seems to be a misunderstanding between us. I shall try to correct that misunderstanding. I refer my noble friend to my words at col. 375 of Hansard which he quoted when he first moved the amendment. The relevant passage states:
"we are not deciding in this Bill whether or not the United Kingdom should participate in a single currency or join the third stage of economic and monetary union. Both the treaty
130
and the Bill provide watertight legal protection for that decision to be taken nearer the time and for Parliament to be fully involved".
What we have in the treaty is a mechanism by which monetary union could work, but the decision of the government of the day is not one that is to be taken today, or indeed with this Bill. It is an entirely separate matter to be decided at a later date if the government of that day wish to introduce into both Houses of Parliament a Bill to take this country into a single currency and the third stage of EMU. I hope I have cleared the matter up completely for my noble friend and that there is no longer a misunderstanding between us.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I must say that he still has not answered—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am perfectly in order. According to the Companion to the Standing Orders a peer may ask—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have to read from the "little red book" which states that only the mover of an amendment speaks after the Minister on Report save for short questions and elucidation to the Minister before he sits down.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, with the leave of the House, will my noble friend just say whether it is government policy to approve EMU among the other 11 or not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that was a question that we discussed at considerable length in Committee. It is for other countries to decide what they want to do. It is a matter for this country, with the opt-out, to decide what we want to do.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Annual report by Bank of England]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 3, after ("order") insert ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23 with which it is grouped. These amendments constitute very important drafting improvements to Clause 3 of the Bill and follow the debate which I had with my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in our Committee stage proceedings on 30th June at cols. 842 to 845 of Hansard.
I should repeat what I said then, to the effect that these amendments, and those which follow under Amendments Nos. 26 and 28 to Clause 5 of the Bill, were not dreamt up by a layman such as myself. They were the result of detailed scrutiny and consideration by legal draftsmen who must be considered as at least as good as any the Government may be consulting.

131
Indeed, I am unable to name them precisely because they are so senior and so respected in your Lordships' House and in another place. I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would not be appropriate for me to do so.
I regret to say that those who advise me find the replies given by my noble and learned friend on 30th June somewhat unsatisfactory. That is why I have brought the amendments back now. I believe your Lordships will again agree with me that this is a serious situation. Perhaps I could put it into perspective by reminding your Lordships of some of the debate which took place yesterday when some of your Lordships felt that the form of our debates on whether, and if so how, to import various titles of the Treaty on European Union into British law was so unusual as to require reference to your Lordships' Procedure Committee. I am sure most of us would welcome that because we might thus find a solution to the problem of debating and amending treaties bearing the huge significance of this Union treaty before the Executive signs them rather than after it has done so.
Indeed, yesterday I was tempted to say to those who are objecting to our present procedures that they must expect at least some unusual debating tactics on this Bill. After all, it is not every day of the week that your Lordships debate a Bill the eventual effect of which, many of us believe, will be actually to make your Lordships' House redundant.
Be that as it may, these amendments cannot be objectionable on those grounds. They offer what I am advised are essential amendments to the wording of Clause 3 of the Bill itself. It is therefore a very serious matter if the Government resist them without good reason. I would have to suggest to the Government if they do so that they are abusing not the procedures of the House but our function. Perhaps that does not matter so much if we are in any case soon to be made redundant, but as the Government and those who support this Bill will presumably say that we are not being made redundant, I believe they have no alternative but to take these amendments very seriously.
Having got that off my chest, I turn to the amendments themselves. I can but repeat what I said in Committee. The order referred to in Clause 3, so I am advised, should be a statutory instrument. It is that statutory instrument which should be subject to an affirmative resolution rather than the report of the governor of the Bank of England (or whatever he will be called by then), as the wording of Clause 3 may attempt to suggest. My advisers do not agree that it succeeds in this, and insist that technically the clause implies that it is the order, or we would hope statutory instrument, which should be subject to approval.
And then I found my noble and learned friend's reply at col. 845 somewhat disturbing. He pointed out that since these provisions of Clause 3 will be implemented only after we have joined Stage 3—that is, Stage 3 of the Treaty on European Union and monetary union and all that—and are therefore locked in irrevocable monetary union with Europe,
132
the Governor of the Bank of England would be able to do what he wanted with his report if Parliament did not approve it. My noble and learned friend said that it would not be for us—by which I think he means the British Parliament—to decide what to do with it. I may have been a bit slow on the uptake here, but I had not realised that the proposed independent national bank would be so completely removed from the influence of the British Parliament. I wonder whether it surprises some others of your Lordships as well.
Be that as it may, my noble and learned friend seems to be in a bit of a cleft stick here, because if it does not matter what Parliament thinks of the governor's report, what is the point of making it subject to the approval of Parliament? If my noble and learned friend is correct, surely the Bill should be amended to leave out the last sentence of Clause 3. If my noble and learned friend is not correct and those who advise me are correct, then I suggest that the clause still requires redrafting, as I have suggested.
In order to help my noble and learned friend I wonder if I could suggest that those who advise me might sit down with those who are advising him so that we can improve the Bill by the time it comes back at Third Reading. Surely that is the function of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as my noble friend has raised matters which in my view are extraneous to the amendment I shall be very brief in replying to them. However, it was I who suggested that the procedures of this Bill should, in retrospect; be referred to the Select Committee on the procedures of this House for purposes which I expanded upon at that time. The reason for my doing so was that those procedures seemed to me to have departed, in some cases almost violently, from the proper precedents of your Lordships' House and therefore it was proper that that committee, as the guardian of the procedures of this House, should see that no damage flowed therefrom. It had nothing whatever to do with the unusual nature of the Bill before us, which I find perfectly acceptable. I find the amendment absurd.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may also say a brief word on procedure. I was one of those who objected to a particular amendment yesterday on the grounds that I thought that it went rather far in terms of the interpretation of our procedures. I am one of those who accept that the Bill is rather peculiar in terms of our ability to discuss the treaty, and on the whole I favour a broad rather than a narrow view of the matter. To reiterate, yesterday I felt that one amendment went so far that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that, once this Bill is over and done with, the time has come for us to interpret how we handle such matters, both with a view to ensuring that noble Lords who wish to comment on issues of importance can do so and also that your Lordships stick to our usual procedures wherever possible. I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in that regard.

133
Turning specifically to the amendment before us, I take it that we are not discussing Article 108 of the treaty, which is concerned with incorporating all that is required in order to set up the European system of central banks and to adjust all our legislation accordingly, but a matter of grammar and punctuation in the Bill.
Clause 3 seems to me perfectly clear. I do not speak as a lawyer, and that may be my disadvantage. However, first, the clause refers to implementing Article 108 of the treaty in legislation. That is clear. Secondly, it states (and I would have thought this highly desirable) that Her Majesty's Government will make provision for the Governor of the Bank of England to make an annual report to Parliament. I take it that that means both Houses of Parliament, and I assume that the usual channels would ensure that we debated that report. Finally, the clause says that we shall do that by order. Therefore, I see none of the ambiguities to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred. Perhaps I may put forward as one item of evidence the fact that I was able to interpret this particular clause in a way which makes sense, and as I am sure it was intended to make sense.
My only slight difficulty is that I am not one of those brilliant draftsmen to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, referred. I have never drafted anything in my life. If the noble Lord tells me that all those extraordinarily brilliant but anonymous draftsmen say that the clause is ambiguous I can only ask him to tell them that at least one of your Lordships does not find it at all ambiguous. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister when he replies whether he agrees with me that it is clear and unambiguous or accepts that it is ambiguous. The wording could be more felicitous, but we do not usually judge Bills before your Lordships' House in terms of their stylistic qualities. In my view it is not the case that the clause is not clear.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in deference to the advisers, however eminent they may be, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, can take a crumb of comfort from the fact that, although a very knock-about lawyer, I happen to agree with him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when these amendments were moved in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, used these words:
"The position is, again, that the drafting is perhaps not as clear as it might be. But it was made absolutely clear by the Opposition spokesman in another place that the intention of the clause was that any report under the clause would need to receive the approval of Parliament before any submission was made to the Council or to the Commission". —[Official Report, 30/6/93; col. 846.]
That appears to be acceptable, but I would want from him the absolute assurance that what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, proposes is not necessary in order to make these two clauses work. I should like an assurance that we shall not be told at some later stage that because the clauses are defective Parliament will not he able to have the information and do what the Minister said at Report stage that it would be able to
134
do. I hope that the noble arid learned Lord will be able to give those assurances. If not I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will test the feeling of the House.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as another non-lawyer perhaps I may say that I find the clause extremely ambiguous, even now. The clause contains references to two documents: the order which sets up the machinery, and the report of the governor. I can see that if one has an order, whether or not it is a statutory instrument, one would say that it should be approved by Parliament. That is perfectly normal and natural. On the other hand, the grammar of the clause and the order of words suggests that what should he approved by Parliament is the annual report. We receive many annual reports and we often debate them, but we do not approve them. What would happen if either House of Parliament said, "This is an awful report, we strongly disapprove of it?" Would the governor resign? Would the European monetary system collapse? Can we have clarification as to what Parliament is to be asked to approve?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should have thought that it was perfectly plain. The clause refers to a provision made by order. That is what is discussed by both Houses of Parliament, not the report. One can see quite clearly that it is not the report.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my syntax was learnt a long time ago. After the word "order" there is a comma. There is then a subordinate clause:
"make provision for the Governor of the Bank of England to make an annual report to Parliament".
There is then another comma, and then there is the reference to approval by a resolution by each House of Parliament. The resolution and approval can only refer to the order and not to the subordinate clause.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, there has been a great deal of discussion, even in this short debate, of the syntax of this very short clause. My understanding of the purpose of the clause—which is where I believe one has to start—when it was inserted into the Bill in another place was to provide an opportunity for Parliament to debate and approve the annual report of the Governor of the Bank of England. That, after all, is the matter of substance with which we are concerned. It is a matter of substance which would be of interest to Parliament when and if—as we would be ex hypothesi at this stage—we were in Stage 3 of the system of monetary union and we had an independent bank. Against that background I say to your Lordships that there is no ambiguity in the wording of the clause as it comes before the House.
The difference between myself and my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch and his advisers is this. They believe that the intention of the clause is that the order rather than the annual report should be subject to approval by resolution. If what had been intended by the clause was merely that an order for a report should be subject to resolution, I can understand that the amendments suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson would certainly be desirable and might indeed be necessary. But that is not the way in which the

135
Government have interpreted the clause. On the contrary, the clause is interpreted as being intended to provide for the House to have an opportunity to consider the report of the Governor of the Bank of England every year when he makes such a report. On that basis, the amendments suggested by my noble friend are not only unnecessary but positively destructive of the legislative intention of the clause.
Despite the fact that the wording is perhaps not particularly felicitous—I take up the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Peston—nonetheless I am quite satisfied that the intention of the wording is quite clear. I am satisfied that it will indeed be possible to work this clause when and if it has to be worked when we come to Stage 3.
My noble friend Lord Beloff asked what would happen if Parliament did not approve the governor's report. I repeat what I said at Committee stage, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch; and it must be right. The reaction to that situation is one for the governor at that stage. He is the governor of an independent bank and a member of the ESCB. He is reporting on his activities and the activities of the ESCB in that connection. What he does in the light of his annual report not being approved must be a matter for the governor at that stage. I again remind the House that he is the governor of an independent bank. That is why I said that if his report is not approved, what he does is not a matter for the Government or for this House. At the end of the day it is inevitably a matter for the governor. No doubt he will carefully consider the fact that it has not been approved. But at that stage he is an independent governor of an independent bank and it is for him to consider his appropriate action at that stage.
For those reasons I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendments. Not only are they unnecessary; they are indeed destructive of the clause.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may ask this. Does he agree that any ambiguity arising from the grammar would be removed if one simply blotted out the little comma after "Parliament" in line 5? It would then be quite clear that the approval applied to the report and not to the order. I do not believe that the measure would have to go back to the House of Commons.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not believe that it is necessary to make that change, however small it may be. I believe that the wording of the section and the explanation that I have given are sufficiently clear. If it ever had to be interpreted in a court, under the rules now available the consideration given to it in your Lordships' House and in another place by various speakers would be available to the courts for interpretation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the greatest respect, I have done my best to follow my noble and learned friend's reasoning. However, I believe he still remains either in or on the cleft stick to which I referred earlier. I shall look at what he said in
136
Hansard and review it further. However, if the governor of the national bank or the chief executive of the national bank—whatever he is called by then—is independent of Parliament, it is difficult to see why his report has to be subject to an affirmative resolution.
Apart from that, I am extremely grateful for the support that I have had from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. His dissertation on commas is precisely the dissertation that I had from learned advice. They are in no doubt at all that this clause requires the order which they think should be a statutory instrument to be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The clause does not say what happens if it does not. However, in order to accommodate my noble and learned friend, and in the hope that his advisers and my advisers may get together before Third Reading, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 22, I remind the House that if it is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 23A.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 23A:
Page 2, line 5, after ("which") insert ("report").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry was characteristically extremely helpful not only at Committee stage but during previous amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. He most helpfully repeated what he stated at Committee stage,
"the purpose of the clause being to allow Parliament to scrutinise, to examine and to pass comment on the terms of the governor's report".—[Official Report, 30/6/93; col. 845.]
He went further today. Quite rightly in my view, he referred also to the approval of Parliament which is in the wording of Clause 3.
Since he has been so helpful, I am minded to be as helpful to him. He will no doubt greatly welcome the small amendment which inserts the word "report" after "which". That makes clear beyond doubt the intention of Clause 3. Some noble Lords have suggested that the purport was perfectly clear. However, my noble friend Lady Carnegy was absolutely clear that Clause 3 meant that the approval sought was for the order and not for the report. For that reason, I believe that the amendment is helpful.
Clause 3 deals with two issues: first, making provision for the Governor of the Bank of England to report; and, secondly, that the annual report be submitted for approval. Clause 5 deals with one issue alone—that Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament. It uses the term,
"which report shall form the basis of",
and so on. I suggest that in the interests of clarity my noble and learned friend should accept the amendment using the excellent drafting style in Clause 5. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is with a characteristic desire to be helpful that my noble friend has put forward this amendment. I hope he will not think that I am being ungrateful if I nonetheless ask him in due course to withdraw the amendment. I shall do so on the basis that it is, like the other amendments, unnecessary.
If one looks at the clause as it stands, despite what has been said I think that even the grammar and punctuation point to the construction for which I have already contended and spoken, which is the construction that it is on its natural reading the annual report which is subject to approval by resolution. If one looks at these, by now, well-known commas one will see that,
"Her Majesty's Government shall, by order,"—
So there are two commas. "By order" is surrounded by commas. One reads on:
"make provision for the Governor of the Bank of England to make an annual report to Parliament, which shall be subject to approval by a Resolution of each House of Parliament".
Had there been no comma before the words "by order" it might have been possible to read the clause with an ambiguity suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. But the comma before the words "by order" and the fact that those words are segregated by the commas shows in my reading of the clause that one has to take those words out and let the clause run through, in which case one finds that the word "which" refers naturally back to the words which come shortly before it, "an annual report". In other words, on the natural reading, even taking into account the commas, one finds that it is the annual report to Parliament which is to be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Therefore, even on the grammatical or syntactical points which are raised, that is indeed the correct reading.
I should also say that if one has regard to the whole purpose and sense of the clause it is designed to make the report subject to approval by resolution of each House of' Parliament. In that situation, and having regard to the rule of construction in Pepper v. Hart, I have no doubt that if this matter were to be tested in the courts it would indeed be construed in the way that I have suggested. In that situation there is no need for the word "report" to be inserted.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for that explanation. I may be very much better informed but I am not very much wiser. I am grateful for what he said because he argued very cogently that the amendment is totally and absolutely unnecessary. Therefore, to help him even further at Third Reading, I intend to remove, as he suggested the House agree to, the word "report" from Clause 5, which is even more unnecessary. I am sure that on this argument my noble and learned friend will approve that amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Information for Commission]:
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 24:
138
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("submitted") and insert ("forwarded").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27. These amendments refer to certain aspects of the wording of Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. The clauses appear to have been added in another place without over-much debate upon them. I have been able to trace the complete assent of Her Majesty's Government to the proposals of the clauses which emanated from Mr. Robertson who speaks on behalf of my own party in another place.
Clause 4 refers to the provisions of Article 103(3) of the treaty. With your Lordships' permission I should like to remind the House of the contents and requirements of Article 103(3). It 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 of economic polices with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2, and regularly carry out an overall assessment".
It then states:
"For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy and such other information as they deem necessary".
The obligation under this clause is for member states to forward information. As the Government and, apparently, the Opposition agree that this information should be provided, it appears on the face of it unnecessary for this to be reproduced in the Bill itself. Why should there be an additional necessity laying on the Government an obligation to provide information which is already accepted in the treaty? Clause 4 puts it this way:
"In implementing the provisions of Article 103(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, information shall be submitted to the Commission".
I suggest the insertion of the word "forwarded" in conformity with the words in the treaty itself. The clause would then read:
"shall be forwarded to the Commission from the United Kingdom indicating performance on economic growth, industrial investment, employment and balance of trade, together with comparisons with those items of performance from other member states".
Why, in addition to accepting responsibility under the treaty which the Government support, should it be necessary to rewrite it in specific terms into the Bill? The clause was proposed by Mr. Robertson and was agreed to with alacrity by the Government. As your Lordships will understand, I am a trifle suspicious about why that was done.
There are no precedents. I draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions of the original Treaty of Rome on the rendering of information by member states to the Commission. Article 14.6 provides:
"Member States shall report to the Commission on the manner in which effect has been given to the preceding rules for the reduction of duties"—
Those are customs duties. It says "report" Article 15 says in regard to the provisions of Article 14 that member states,
"shall inform the other Member States and the Commission thereof".

139
We accepted the obligations under the treaty, but I do not find any trace in the European Communities Act 1972 of a requirement that the Government submit to the Commission various pieces of information. There is nothing specific to reinforce the obligation which we entered into under the treaty by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972.
There was a broad obligation—it was a broad obligation only—in Section 12 of the Act which, with the permission of the House I shall read. Under the subheading "Furnishing of information to Communities"—noble Lords will please note the term "furnishing", not "submitting"—the Act states:
"Estimates, returns and information that may under section 9 of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 or section 80 of the Agriculture Act 1947 be disclosed to a government department or Minister in charge of a government department may, in like manner, be disclosed in pursuance of a Community obligation to a Community institution".
But there is nothing specific that requires Her Majesty's Government under the Treaty of Rome to submit the various reports that are required to be furnished to the European Commission. I wonder why this particular procedure has been adopted. More particularly so as under the protocol on the convergence criteria referred to in Article 109j of the treaty, at Article 5 it states,
"The statistical data to be used for the application of this Protocol shall be provided by the Commission".
In other words, the Commission already has the responsibility. In any event, the statistical data published by the Commission and in use throughout the Community relating to EC matters is already the responsibility of the European Commission. I do not know about this.
What puzzles me is the use of the terms "submit" and "submission". It is purely a psychological question. I do not want to make too much of it. But there is a difference between forwarding information, rendering information, supplying information, providing information and submitting information. "Submitting" essentially means that one is supplying something to a superior body or a body on whom one is placing some reliance and some obligation. For example, one makes submissions to a court of justice; that is necessary. It is for that purpose superior to oneself.
I suggest that the term "submission" is quite inappropriate. I do not see the necessity for these clauses in any event. But if the clauses are to be there and are to lay specific obligations on the Government, they should be couched in approximately the same language, with the same gradation of meaning, as is contained in the treaty itself.
There is a further interesting factor which I would not wish to take time to enlarge upon, but it is an interesting point; namely, the assumption that Mr. Robertson will be a member of the next Labour government and that a Labour government will shortly be elected before the treaty is renegotiated in 1996. On that assumption it would appear to be a quite unnecessary provision. If Labour are to be the government anyway, why tie themselves down in an Act? It may perhaps be a subconscious indication that they are afraid that the next government will probably
140
be of the same political persuasion as the present one and that therefore they will need binding. These are uncharitable thoughts. But the meaning and the attitude behind them are fascinating. I do not know whether the House senses the difference which I have endeavoured to convey. I am quite sure that it will be ridiculed, but I care none the less for that. I know that psychologically I am right. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, while attention is focused on this amendment and on Clause 4, I wonder whether I may ask. a question about the wording which I trust my noble and learned friend will be able to answer. It is a different point to that made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I recognise that the Government are not wholly responsible for Clause 4, but I trust that their understanding of it will be adequate for them to be able to improve my understanding. What puzzles me are the words in the last two lines:
"together with comparisons with those items of performance from other member States".
My question is this. How come that we are supposed to forward details of the performance of other members of the Community as well as of our own? How are we going to achieve that, and what possible purpose could it serve?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of my noble friend's amendment. I have to do so now because I cannot do so, even if I would prefer to, after the noble and learned Lord has replied to the debate. I want to lend a word of support because I see some reason behind these changes which makes it all the more important that they should be questioned and perhaps even resisted.
The changes move always, or so it seems to me, in the direction of placing this House and the other place in a subservient position to the creations of the European Community. My noble friend has referred to a psychological difference. I think it may be a little more practical than that. If we were moving into the position of expecting, as some people do, the establishment of a federal government of Europe, then to such a government one "submits". One does not simply "inform" because one is subservient to them. Here we are preparing for a position of subservience. We get into the habit of saying, "They are the bosses and we are the provincial government who submit to the major organisation".
It may seem an unimportant point that one has to "inform" people rather than "submit" to them, but I do not think that it is unimportant. Those of us who are very much opposed to the creation of a federal Europe—and that includes a number of people who nonetheless support the Maastricht proposals, which I myself do not—would say that perhaps this goes a bit too far. Perhaps we are following in the footsteps of Ted Heath in wanting to establish a federation. In my view that would be a disaster. Any step, however small—even if it is only a question of nomenclature—which seems to move us in that direction should be resisted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend will deal seriously with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, raised on the construction of the word "submitted". Certainly listening to this debate I could not help but feel that there was an element of subservience in the word "submitted". You "submit" reports to your superiors. You only "forward" them, to use the word in the amendment, to your equals. I hope therefore that my noble and learned friend will be prepared to treat that point seriously.
Some of us feel that there are certain elements in government today that rather like the idea of the superiority of the Commission and of the European authorities; and there are others, of whom I confess I am one, who are a trifle suspicious of it.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is interesting to note that in 1971–72, when the whole question of joining the European Community came up, Mr. Wilson, as he then was, accused Mr. Heath of rolling on his back like a spaniel and submitting to the European Community. I therefore wait with particular interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has to say upon this very factor.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not feel impelled to make a speech on the basis dictated by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. In my submission there is nothing in the submission. My noble friend Lord Richard has now presented me with—submitted—The Concise Oxford Dictionary and it gives as one of the meanings of "submit":
"present for consideration or decision".
The word can have other connotations and other definitions. But clearly, in this context that is what the word means. To suggest that on the basis of that word we shall build a federal Europe seems to me to be somewhat fanciful.
The argument is a strange one coming from my noble friend and those who have supported him. I should have thought that Parliament had decided to interpret in its own way how it intended to perform this duty. It was exercising subsidiarity in the performance of that task. Why there should be a complaint about it now when in fact the argument in our previous debates has been all the other way, I simply do not know. With great respect, I think that there is nothing in the submission at all.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, predicted that his suggestions or arguments would be ridiculed. In the short time that I have been in your Lordships' House, I have come to appreciate the feeling for language which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, so obviously has and which he uses to such effect in his speeches to this House. It is very far from the case that I would in any way ridicule what he said about the word "submit". Obviously he feels deeply on the matter and he is someone for whom words and the nuances of words are extremely important. I take very seriously what he said.
However, that does not mean that I accept what he said. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, after reference to the Oxford Dictionary, it is plain
142
that the word "submit" has several connotations and in certain circumstances has pejorative connotations. For example, when one submits at a judo match or something of that kind, obviously one is recognising superiority. But where I submit, for example, an argument for consideration by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce (who I hope will not find my words offensive), I do not thereby concede his superiority in the matter. I am simply putting it forward for his consideration.
In that general context I believe that the word "submit" is used in that spirit in this text. I take the point that in the treaty the word "forward" is used in Article 103.3. It is perfectly plain that the word "forwarded" could have been used effectively in Clause 4. But for the reason that I have indicated, I do not accept that by using the word "submitted" in this context one in any way accepts any position of inferiority or anything like that vis-à-vis the Commission or the other Community authorities.
It is proper to notice that in certain other areas different language is used, for example, in connection with what one finds in Clause 5. At the end of Clause 5 there is a reference to Article 104c. In paragraph 9 of Article 104c the word "submit" is used. Therefore the point is different in connection with Clause 5. For the reason that I have put forward I do riot accept that the wording is defective.
I turn to the other point taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in connection with the specification found towards the end of Clause 4. There one is dealing with what the other place—or Mr. Robertson who has been referred to—felt was proper to be included in the information which was before it. At the end of Article 103.3 one sees that what was before it was information about important measures taken by the member states in the field of their economic policy and:
"such other information as they deem necessary".
It is perfectly clear that it is open to member states to take a view as to what is or is not necessary to be submitted. Here we have an expression of the will of Parliament as to what the United Kingdom should consider necessary to be included in the information to be forwarded. What is included there, as one can see, is specification of matters relating to performance of economic growth, industrial investment, employment and balance of trade. Those are matters which are not specifically required elsewhere in Article 103 or by reference to Article 102a. They are matters which Parliament indicates should be taken forward—information given to the Commission for consideration by the Council.
My noble friend Lord Gray asked about the comparisons of those items and asked whether that could be done. I can assure him that it can be done. Indeed, already there exists an annual procedure for examining the relative economic performance of all member states in the preparation of the Commission's annual economic report on the Community. The United Kingdom already plays a full part in that process. Therefore, in that connection, it is already possible to make comparisons with various items of performance of other member states.
Against that background there is no great departure in the idea that if that information is being

143
provided, it will be provided together with comparisons with items from other member states. I hope that I have explained the position and in the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will withdraw his amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down perhaps he will confirm a point which I believe was implied in his speech; namely, that if the word "forwarded" were substituted for the word "submitted" the clause would remain perfectly effective.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the word "forward" would be a synonym which would be perfectly effective. However, it is not necessary to make such a change. It is not necessary for the legislation to reflect precisely the wording in the treaty. It is perfectly satisfactory as it stands and there is no need for the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his constructive and sympathetic reply to the observations that I ventured to make to your Lordships. It must be very difficult for him within the terms of the concordat that has been established between the Government and the Opposition over the treaty as a whole to put himself in the invidious position of having to defend a couple of clauses that were inserted in the Bill at the instance of the Opposition. I deeply appreciate the way in which he sought to deal with the matter. I am also most grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Although the noble and learned Lord has not answered the point, neither has my noble friend. If the term "forward" was in Article 103.3, to which the clause refers, why was the word "submit" substituted for the ready-made word that was already in the treaty? There is a psychological aspect to the matter. Moreover, although my noble friend had the opportunity, he did not avail himself of it to explain why it was necessary to table these amendments at all in view of the clear obligations under the treaty upon all member states, including the United Kingdom, to provide the information required.
I shall not press the noble Lord upon that point. However, in the weeks and months that lie ahead there may be some necessity for me to return to that aspect, as controversy grows and as the Maastricht arrangements progressively crumble. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Convergence criteria: assessment of deficits]:
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("for its approval").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 26 and 28 are similar to Amendment Nos. 20 and 23
144
to Clause 3 which I moved a little earlier. What I said in regard to the function of your Lordships' House applies equally to these amendments as it did to those, and I regret that my noble friend Lord Elton is not here to hear me say that.
The defects of Clause 5 are even clearer than those of Clause 3. There is no doubt this time that we are dealing with annual reports, nor is there any doubt that the reports must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. The trouble is, as I mentioned in Committee on 30th June, that the clause is silent as to what happens if a report is not approved by either House. l referred to that in cols. 843–6 of Hansard, when I said that the clause as drafted simply left the problem "hanging in the air". In his reply of 30th June my noble and learned friend agreed (at col. 846) that the drafting was,
"not as clear as it might be".
He therefore gave an assurance that the reports would be submitted to the Commission only if both Houses of Parliament approved them. Those who advise me regard that assurance as inadequate and not in accordance with the high standards of revision which your Lordships' House always brings to drafting amendments. My advisers feel that the Government are honour bound to accept the amendments because they reflect exactly what my noble and learned friend agreed in Committee was the position with regard to Clause 5 and because without them it is defective.
I am happy to repeat the same suggestion as I made to my noble and learned friend while discussing Amendments Nos. 20 and 23; namely, that our advisers should sit down together and agree accurate drafting of both Clauses 3 and 5 which could be introduced by the Government at Third Reading.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, the advisers to whom the noble Lord refers are anonymous. If they are to meet the advisers of the Government, presumably that anonymity will have to be removed. Would it not be better for the noble Lord to tell us who is giving him advice?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that I am at present under restraint not to reveal who my advisers are. I assure him that the advisers in question would find no difficulty in sitting down together and in preserving their anonymity afterwards.
I repeat the suggestion that the advisers should sit down together and agree accurate drafting of both Clauses 3 and 5, which amendment could be introduced at Third Reading. At the same time they could clarify the drafting of the penultimate line of Clause 5, which at present is telescoped to require the reports to be submitted to both Commission and Council in deference to Article 104c of the treaty. My noble and learned friend admitted in Committee that he did not "carry a torch" for Clause 5 either. I therefore hope that the light which my advisers have been able to cast on the clause will prevail and that the Government will agree to bring forward a suitable amendment at Third Reading. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I shall not break a confidence. I know who the advisers are. Without a

145
shadow of a doubt they are important and intellectual people who are not a million miles away from either the City of London or the City of Westminster. I tried to persuade my noble friend Lord Pearson to disclose who they are. He feels that he cannot do so and I respect his confidence. However, the quality of the advice that he is receiving is of an extremely high standard.
It seems to me to be stubborn, to put it mildly, for the Government to say, as they have in effect said, that the clauses are unsatisfactory—"I will not carry a torch for it"—because under no circumstances do they want the Bill to go back to the House of Commons. In effect they are denying us the right to act as a revising Chamber, even though the revision has nothing to do with the substance but only with the form of the Bill. That does not show the political courage which I had hoped a Conservative administration would show.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I am mystified by the battle of the advisers. Why should there be any mystery about it? In the years that I have spent in one House or another the only advisers who are absolutely acceptable are the parliamentary clerks. They are not clerks to the Government or to the Opposition; they are clerks to Parliament.
If there is any doubt as to whether something comes within the realm of what is correct in parliamentary terms, the clerks are the ones to ask. Has nobody thought of doing that? Have the Government not shared their feelings with the parliamentary clerks? That applies in both Houses. I remember the days of Barnett Cocks. He was extremely proud of the fact that he was the Clerk of the House and not just of a section of it. One could take great advantage of his guidance.
I am bewildered by the mystery. It is what is happening in the whole of Parliament. It is no longer Ministers and Back-Benchers who argue. The Back-Benchers have their researchers and the Government have their researchers and advisers. Everybody works on the advice of the researchers, so it is not a battle of Parliament or Members of it; it is a battle of researchers.
We have a wonderful parliamentary system where we have all the expert advice we need. If there is any doubt about something, why can we not use the proper source—the open door of the parliamentary advisers who sit at the Table in both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch refers regularly to "my advisers", no doubt with proper respect. But for the rest of us who have not the faintest idea who they are the position is less easy. I would be much more impressed if I knew that the advisers were people of standing, experience and wide knowledge and if I were told who they were. But to be told again and again "my advisers say" without any reference to who they are does not make debate any easier. I ask my noble friend, if he is going to rely on the views of his advisers, to consider telling us who they are.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I have no advisers in the matter, neither am I legally qualified. But as a layman reading Clause 5 I am under the impression that any submission of the report to the Council and Commission could be made before the approval of Parliament. At the same time, I wonder what will happen if either House of Parliament does not approve the report. Would then the submission based on that report still be made to the Council and Commission? It does not say in this clause that it could not be made; and, as I understand the amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that would clarify the position and make it perfectly clear to all concerned that any report would have to be approved by Parliament before being submitted to the Council and Commission.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, if I may react to what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said, of course a man of his stature with such wisdom and knowledge need take nothing whatsoever other than his own counsel. The reason why, quite rightly and properly, my noble friend Lord Pearson mentioned his advisers was refreshing humility, because he also quite rightly recognises the fact that he, like so many of us, is in great need of counsel.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in returning to the question that I originally posed about Clause 5 of the Bill, I must ask the Government whether they want to submit an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary positionin relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals in Article 2. Do they want to send such an assessment to the Commission? I want to avoid using the controversial term "submission" for the moment. I wonder whether the Government themselves are really happy about this.
We have had a rather unfortunate history, as I am sure your Lordships will agree—and I am talking now in quite non-controversial terms—of publishing quite firm economic and budgetary forecasts. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that practically every year they have been way out. I question the desirability of, as it were, writing on blocks of stone what our predictions are, forwarding them (or submitting them, if you like) to the Commission and running the risk at a later stage of being reproached by this august, learned and all-seeing body for having, either intentionally or unintentionally, misled them.
I think the Government have been perhaps a little careless in accepting the representation of my colleagues in another place who, quite understandably—here perhaps the party interest is beginning to exert itself a little—would be only too happy to see the Government put their necks in a noose in this respect. If that be so, they have certainly fallen for it. However, I return to the original position which stipulates—and I accept it for what it is worth—that Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval.

147
How is that approval to be expressed? Is it going to be a Motion for Approval and, if so, will that rank as real approval? What can be the objection to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, to the effect that no such submission shall be made unless the report referred to has been laid before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament?
Surely that accomplishes the purpose. This is a way of obtaining parliamentary approval of the report. However, are the Government saying, alternatively, that if Parliament disapproves of the report referred to, which is going to be submitted to the Commission and Council, they will override the disapproval of Parliament? I wonder where they stand in this matter. It will be very interesting to find out, because for the life of me I cannot see a better way of obtaining the approval of both Houses than by laying and approving it.
Your Lordships will observe that the reference is to "Parliament". The clause does not refer exclusively to the other place but to this place as well. And, as your Lordships are well aware, especially in regard to the recent debates we have been having during the past few weeks on Maastricht, the House has generally shown itself to be pretty well informed about these matters, and might be highly critical of such a report.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I have no problem with the clandestine advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, although being an inquisitive person, I should naturally like to know some day who they are. However, I do not think that the merits of the amendments depend on the ad hominem arguments in these cases.
Equally, I think my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has slightly widened our debates beyond the two amendments we are considering, since he now wishes to discuss Article 103(3). I have to tell him that the party of which he is a member is fully committed to closer co-ordination of economic policies and sustained convergence. Indeed, since occasionally he speaks as a Keynesian economist, I have to tell him that to those of us who are in the mainstream of the Keynesian tradition, that is central to our view of economics. There may be other economists with other nomenclatures who might take a different view, but I mention that to him for the purposes of consistency.
Turning to the clauses themselves, I have my usual difficulty. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, says in his amendments: my difficulty is that that is what this clause says precisely. I am trying to imagine this whole set-up of the Government either submitting them for approval but nonetheless still submitting them without approval; or various other things. The Government are always doing this sort of thing. They will put matters before both Houses of Parliament and both Houses debate them. They may be changed, they may be approved or they may be disapproved. The Government have to get their business agreed to; they would do that and then submit them. I agree that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, are correct; but I would—to go back to the
148
earlier debate—submit that this clause says exactly what he thinks it ought to say. I await to hear the Minister on this, but I do not think there is any problem with clarity here at all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, surely when we are passing legislation it is better to get it correct. My noble friend in fact has conceded to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that the wording of the amendment is in fact correct. Presumably in so saying he believes that it expresses what the Opposition intended when they moved this particular clause in another place. Therefore, for the sake of making absolutely certain that the intention of the Opposition is realised within the Bill, would it not be better to put in the wording proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, which then would apparently leave no room for doubt as to what this particular clause meant.
I thought that was the role of this place—to ensure that when legislation leaves this House it is as pure as it possibly can be and as well drafted as it possibly can be. Therefore if my noble friend, whose party—and of course my own party—is behind these amendments, believes that the drafting by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, would make it a better drafted clause, why on earth does he not urge the Government and the Minister to accept the amendments which are proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Pearson brought similar amendments before your Lordships in Committee, I think we have had a longer debate on them on this occasion. But in essence what it all boils down to is what is the meaning and the effect of Clause 5, which we have before us? Again, there is no doubt about the intention of those who moved the amendment in the other place. The intention was that the report was to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament before the information was supplied in terms of Article 103.3. In that case the only question which arises is whether or not it was the intention that it would then be transmitted onwards only if the report had been approved or irrespective of that fact.
The intention of those who moved the amendment in the other place was made absolutely clear in a speech there. The Opposition spokesman said that the intention was that any report would need to receive the approval of Parliament before any submission was made to the Commission or to the Council. That position was accepted by the Government. At Committee stage I made it clear and gave an undertaking that any report made under Clause 5 would be submitted by the Government to Parliament for approval and that the information would be submitted to the Commission or the Council only when approval had been secured.
Therefore, in answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen, if Parliament does not approve the report then the information will not be supplied under the terms of Clause 5. It can be supplied only when the report has been approved. That is what has been said by those who have moved the amendment and also consistently in this House by myself.

149
I believe that one gets to that position in any event from a perfectly natural construction of the wording of the clause. One might ask oneself: What would the conceivable purpose be of adding the words,
"Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval"?
What would be the purpose of those words if it were not that the submission could only be made if the report which was to form the basis of the submission and which was a report to Parliament for its approval, had been approved? It is perfectly plain on the wording of the legislation itself that these words, by their presence in the clause, indicate that the report can only be passed on when it has been approved. One gets that from the wording itself and also from what has been said consistently by those who moved the insertion of that provision in this House. I repeat, if and when—I cannot myself see the circumstances when it would be likely to arise—this matter came to he tested in the courts the question would be: What is the appropriate construction of the clause?
Let us assume that, contrary to what I have said, it was somehow thought to be ambiguous. What then? We know that following Pepper v. Hart the courts would have regard to what is said in Parliament about the intention of the clause. In that circumstance it would be perfectly plain to the courts what the intention was both of the people who moved it and of the Government in accepting it. In that situation the courts would apply the interpretation which reflected the intention of Parliament and would indeed hold that the information could be submitted only where the report had been approved.
For those reasons, quite clearly the substance of the matter is covered by the clause and one is discussing only the exact wording. I repeat that one does not need to carry a torch for the way in which the clause has been drafted, but nonetheless, its wording does not cause ambiguity of the kind which my noble friend Lord Pearson and his clandestine advisers consider it does. Nonetheless, because it does not have ambiguity there is no need for the amendment which my noble friend has tabled and I ask him to withdraw it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I begin by apologising to noble Lords who are understandably irritated by my inability to reveal the exact identity of those who advised me. I particularly welcome the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that perhaps the Clerk of the Parliaments should be consulted on that matter. If those who advise me were to sit down with those who advise the Government, and the Clerk of the Parliaments were to join that meeting, I do not believe that it would be increased very much in size. Those who advise me are in an unusually delicate position because I understand that from time to time they do work which bears on our legislative process. In those circumstances I believe that they are right to wish to advise me confidentially.
Turning to the amendment itself and what my noble and learned friend has said, I accept that it was the intention of those who moved the amendment in another place that any report would need to receive
150
the approval of Parliament and that it would not be submitted unless it had been approved. Here again, I am in the hands of experts, but the trouble is that that is not what Clause 5 says at the moment. That is why I feel sure that the meeting which has been suggested would be very helpful. My noble and learned friend has now found it necessary to give no less than two undertakings that the report will not be submitted unless it has been approved by Parliament.
Our position is that, as the clause is worded, it still leaves hanging in the air what happens if the report is not approved by Parliament. I do not want to take up more of your Lordships' time now. However, I shall have to bring this matter back at Third Reading and, I hope, after our various advisers have had the opportunity of a meeting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
European Union: "means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies"
(". To the extent to which Article F.3 is imported into United Kingdom law by section I above, the "means" referred to therein shall be confined to the means provided for in Titles II to VI of the Treaty on European Union and shall not import any further or wider obligation on the part of Her Majesty's Government.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause springs from our debate in Committee on 22nd June. Noble Lords may recollect what happened on that particular occasion in the closing stages of the debate. I asked my noble friend Lord Henley whether I was correct in assuming that the word "means" in the treaty can be translated into "financial resources''. That was the implication that arose in the debate.
My noble friend said:
"I would rather not go quite as far as that".
I believe it is important to note the words,
"quite as far as that".
My noble friend continued:
"The French word was 'moyens'. I accept the correction of my pronunciation from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham",
who I believe is not here to correct my pronunciation today.
"To define it quite simply as purely financial resources, as my noble friend would wish us to do, might limit it more than I would care to go at the moment. It is something I would prefer to come back to, if my noble friend would bear with me, and explain to him later on. At the Dispatch Box at the moment I would rather not agree, in the straightforward manner that my noble friend would wish us, to the definition which he has put forward".—[Official Report, 22/6/93; col. 336.]
True to his word, my noble friend Lord Henley subsequently wrote to me on 29th June, as he had undertaken to do, stating:
"You asked whether the term 'means' was confined to financial resources. I write to confirm the answer I gave that it is not so confined".
It might have been fairer if he had said, "I write to extend the answer I gave that it is not so confined". The letter continues:
"My earlier answer to you and to Lord Monson had concentrated upon financial resources since those were the focus of your questions. But although in English the term

151
'means' is often used in a purely financial sense the French 'moyens' which was the original language of this paragraph is a wider concept—resources in the general sense".
It is important to note how the word "means" became incorporated into the treaty and the hazards of translation.
My noble friend went on to explain—I think that I put it fairly—that the objectives of the treaty for which the means are to be made available are set out in Article B, but are to be achieved through the provisions of Titles II to IV. Finally, my noble friend stated:
"The 'means' by which the Union accomplishes the objectives set out in Article B are those provided, in terms of finances, structures, organisations and policies in Titles II to IV".
That seems plain enough. However, if I am in any way misinterpreting this, I shall be extremely glad to give way to my noble friend Lady Chalker.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that he will forgive me correcting him at this point, but so that no one else is muddled, I should point out that the reference is to Titles II to VI.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am sorry. I am grateful to my noble friend. It is extremely important to the argument that the reference is to Titles II to VI. I misread my own note which, if I may say so, is a hazard of using Roman numerals.
Provided that I am not misreading the Roman numerals, that all seems plain enough, but let us look a little closer. Your Lordships will note that through Article F.3, my noble friend tells me, Title V on foreign and security policy and Title VI on justice and home affairs are brought essentially within the scope of the Bill. What is more, the distinction between the Treaty of Rome and the separate pillars is further eroded. This is a very important matter, which is close to the heart of my noble friend Lady Chalker, who explained only yesterday at col. 44 of Hansard how extremely important it is and how anxious the Government are to avoid such a process of muddle between the two pillars represented by Titles V and VI and the remainder of the Treaty of Maastricht which, of course, amends the Treaty of Rome.
Let us examine how far the provision of "means" might go. I would appreciate some guidance from my noble friend Lady Chalker as to how widely "means" could be interpreted. Let us look at foreign policy, for example. Suppose that it were to become European foreign policy that arms should be supplied to participants in the war in the former Yugoslavia. That is possible. Alternatively, it might be possible for it to be decided that it was to be an object of foreign policy that a cordon sanitaire should be established which would prevent the supply of arms to the participants. Neither of those developments is impossible. Would the word "means" then include the purchase and delivery by an "organisation" in order to accomplish that policy and that objective?
More prosaically, Article K.1 of the treaty contains provisions enabling the Union to accomplish a number of very worthy objectives, for example,
152
combating drug addiction, combating fraud, judicial co-operation in civil matters, Customs co-operation, and,
"police co-operation for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism, unlawful drug trafficking and other serious forms of international crime, including if necessary certain aspects of customs co-operation, in connection with the organisation of a Union-wide system for exchanging information within a European police office, Europol".
That all sounds pretty laudable stuff, and we wish everybody success in achieving those objectives. But what could that be enlarged to under the provisions of this treaty? What,
"finances, structures, organisations and policies"
might be useful to those objectives? Could that European police office be expanded into an office, the personnel of which reported not to their domestic governments, but to the Commission, the Union or the Community? That would seem to me to be part of an "organisation" or a "structure" which comprises the means to achieve the objectives set out herein.
Of course, the consent of Ministers would be required for that to be done. It is not my purpose to suggest that it could be done without the consent of Ministers in the Council. I am inquiring as to whether any further legislation would be required for such a thing to be done. That is the key question that we must ask ourselves. Let us look at the provisions of a common economic policy or the duties of the citizen, if I may mention such a delicate matter. Perhaps we have found another route into those matters. What about Article 130 relating to industrial policy? Can the items which are listed there be expanded? The article states:
"their action shall be aimed at: speeding up the adjustment of industry to structural changes; … fostering better exploitation of the industrial potential of policies of innovation, research and technological development".
Those provisions are pretty wide already. But does the provision give cover for new organisations, as yet uncreated, without the seeking of further powers? I should be obliged if my noble friend can reassure me that new powers would be needed to take those matters further than the way in which they are set out in the treaty.
If such a provision had been included in domestic legislation introduced into the other place, I do not think that we would be discussing it in this House. It would have been torn out in the other place. It could not survive. It seems to me that to enunciate policy objectives in terms so broad as they are set out in this treaty and then to provide that Ministers of our own Government should provide themselves with,
"finances, structures, organisations and policies",
to cover all that was needed to implement those policies would be thought somewhat adventurous.
I accept that there is one control at the moment on all this —the fact that the global finance available to the Community for these purposes is limited. However, there is a good deal of freedom to switch between one programme and another. That freedom is far greater than we would grant to our Government through our own domestic legislation.
There are some real concerns here. I should be grateful if my noble friend would deal with them when she replies. It might be worth adding to them the fact

153
that in what she said yesterday she seemed slightly at odds, as I read it, with what my noble friend Lord Henley said in his letter to me. As I understood what she was saying yesterday in the House, it was that Title VII includes the words "final provisions". If that is so, it is worth noting that Article N in Title VII calls for treaty revision in 1996. It says that the revision will be conducted in accordance with the objectives set out in Articles A and B; that is, the wide objectives of the European Union. That seems to go a little further than what my noble friend Lord Henley was implying in his letter. I am sure that it is I and perhaps one or two other noble Lords who have been confused by the complexity of these matters. I should be most grateful if those difficulties and uncertainties could be cleared up concisely and clearly by my noble friend when she replies to the debate. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, Article F.3 of Title I of the treaty (common provisions) commits itself in precise terms to the financial support of all institutional expenditure:
"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
Hitherto, and in the foreseeable future, it would seem that in the main the funds will be provided from the Community budget itself. The Community budget is not something which normally attracts much attention. The other place is very much concerned, and rightly so, with all public expenditure. It addresses itself to the problems of raising the revenue or the loans to meet that expenditure. Despite the efforts it makes in that direction, which take hours of its time, the other place appears to exercise little supervision over Community expenditure.
Your Lordships will recall that on many occasions have ventured to draw attention to the fact that this country contributes net, after all receipts, something like £2.5 billion per annum to Community funds, thereby no doubt ensuring its permanent place at the heart of Europe, although that is not always universally acknowledged. The attention paid to the European Community budget is not comprehensive. In fact in your Lordships' House periodically—the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, occasionally joins in the matter; indeed, initiates it—concern is expressed about various headings of the Community budget itself.
The assumption seems to be—this is to some extent echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, but it is most carefully emphasised by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis—that effective supervision is exercised by the European Parliament. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has referred to the role of the European Parliament in that regard. I have ventured to exchange opinions with her on the subject. Are we right to assume that Community budgets and expenditure are safe in the hands of the European Parliament? I propose to address myself to that aspect of the matter presently, but in the meantime I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the further developments in Community expenditure that have taken place.
154
In the preliminary draft budget for the year 1994, which has recently come into my possession, it will doubtless be noted that, despite all the alleged economies and continual pruning of Community finances and spending, agricultural expenditure under the CAP is due to rise by £1.338 billion, That is despite all the nice noises that have been made about the necessity of controlling Community expenditure. We should bear in mind particularly that the Common Market still costs the average family of four, in addition to all the tax burdens that it bears, anything between £17 and £20 a week according to official figures.
It will also be noted that the sum for the staffing of the Commission in the budget for 1994 is due to increase by £105 million. I in no way begrudge proper remuneration being paid to highly skilled and dedicated civil servants, whether they are members of the collegiate body or not, but it is something that we should bear in mind. More particularly-—here I am sure that I shall be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whose interest in tobacco finances has been so frequently expressed in the House, and rightly so—we should bear in mind that, despite all the fraud and corruption, sometimes at state level and once at Commission level itself, expenditure on tobacco during the year 1994 will be only marginally less than it was in 1993. For 1993 the outturn is £1.019 billion. In 1994 it is due to be £982 million. I am not necessarily blaming the Government for that. In fact, I am trying to be helpful, if they will let me. I am not suggesting that it is even possible, within the deals that are done behind the closed doors of the Council, or within COREPER or the various other committees, to get one's own way in every field.
We may be prepared to accept, upon the basis of some deal done in other spheres, expenditure going up at that rate, but it cannot be said that at the moment Her Majesty's Government are exercising any considerable control. I hope to be proved wrong, because of course the figures that I have given are for 1994 and the complete Council budgetary procedure, by virtue of which a draft budget is produced later in the year, has still to be completed. The Government: may well be able to obtain further economies, and incidentally reduce the burden which our net contribution to the Community places upon the British taxpayer.
I refer also to the expenditure on the European Parliament. Expenditure on the European Parliament. continues still to rise. I have not yet received the details of the 1994 budget but I am bound to draw the attention of the House to the most extraordinary items of expenditure by the European Parliament. I am not referring to salaries, expenses and various allowances which are available to members. I may sound too envious. I could do with the financial cushion which is afforded by the considerable amounts which may justifiably be paid to European Members of Parliament.
It is the other items which trouble me. For example, in Title 3 of the general budget for 1993, £7 million is paid for secretarial expenses of political groups; £4 million is paid for other political activities unspecified;

155
£9.5 million is paid for information work; and then for some obscure reason which is not explained, there is a contingency reserve amounting to £9.5 million. Those items are not subject at all to audit by the Court of Auditors. They are subject to private audit by the individual party groups which employ their own internal auditors for the purpose of satisfying their party members. But as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out in answer to a question which I ventured to address to him recently, the European Parliament determines its own budget. Her Majesty's Government accept no responsibility for it. And yet, there is a rather touching faith that the European Parliament—by its very existence, deliberations and active of intervention in the affairs of the Community—can exercise some restraining influence and is capable of and does monitor Community expenditure.
I am afraid that that is not how it turns out in practice. I except from the criticisms that I am about to make, the activities of one or two Members of the European Parliament, including principally Mr. Tomlinson, who is a Member of the European Parliament representing a British constituency. He has been most assiduous in his pursuit of fraud. That is a pursuit in which very few other Members of the European Parliament have joined him.
I do not have the time and would not wish to weary the House with the results of my researches into those questions. But I have examined in detail the proceedings of the European Parliament from the 26th to 30th October 1992 right up to March of this year. I assure your Lordships—and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will confirm it—that that includes all the discussions relating to the budget and the discharge of the Community budget and other financial matters.
I have been through those. I cannot read out some of the matters to which I have referred because it would take far too long, but I should give your Lordships a flavour of the way in which expenditure is monitored. There is a budget committee of the European Parliament which comprises some 30 members and has 30 alternates. The attendances at the budget committee meetings are decidedly patchy and the personnel varies considerably. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will dissent from that.
The budget control committee of the European Parliament comprises 25 members with 25 alternates. That is extremely convenient and accommodates, as in the case of the budget committee of the European Parliament, the various social needs which are inseparable from holding the office of a European Member of Parliament. Once again, that does not make for continuity.
Therefore, in order to save time, I have made an analysis of those reports and the proceedings of the European Parliament which have a bearing on the matters that I am discussing. I should tell your Lordships that I am referring to documents 3–423, 3–424, 3–425, 3–426, 3–427, 3–428 and 3–429 in the current Official Journal series. Therefore, your Lordships can look up anything to which I refer.
156
On analysis, I find that in the proceedings up until 12th March from the previous 26th October, the speeches occupied some 1,805 pages; and some 90 contained references to financial matters. That includes the budget, discharge of the Community budget, the financial plans, consideration of the Court of Auditors and consideration of the various items which come before Parliament from time to time. Therefore, at most, some 5 per cent. of the time spent is spent on monitoring those various matters.
As to the nature of the monitoring, I draw your Lordships' attention to the following observation made on one occasion by a European Member of Parliament by the name of Blot—a Frenchman. After the conclusion of a debate on budgetary matters he said at page 74 in document 3–423:
"As regards the budgetary procedure, the fact that this Chamber is almost empty is proof that it does not operate properly. I am not blaming our colleagues for that, but the system itself which does not work. There is no longer any real debate, any real exchange of views in this Parliament. The recent deliberations of the Committee on Budget were an utter caricature in this regard. Why bother to call a committee meeting when everything has already been fixed outside by the Socialist and EPP groups? In these conditions, there is no real parliamentary life any more. There is merely a cartel. We denounce this profoundly undemocratic situation!"
On going through the procedures of the Parliament, I am bound to concur with that. I challenge any noble Lord to go through the somewhat tedious business of reading all those reports. If any noble Lord can find in total, out of a total membership of a European Parliament of 518 members, more than 20 different people who have taken part in any budget debate or even a series of them, I should be greatly obliged. I include in that group the rapporteurs, who obviously speak for longer, and those whose allotted time may be as much as five minutes or as little as two. I should be delighted to hear if there were more than 20 people during the period of time to which I referred who took an active part in actually supervising the budget or in monitoring or going into the detail of the various fraud reports that are produced from time to time. I challenge anyone to do so. If anyone can correct me, I should be very glad to afford that person the time to confront me with the results of any research that yields a different result.
I have one further quote to put before your Lordships. On 22nd October 1992, Mr. Cassidy of the PPE said at page 76 of No. 3.423 of the Official Journal, after considering certain budgetary items:
"I believe in a certain amount of budgetary stringency. I believe that it is our job in the European Parliament to pay some attention to the fact that the money we spend is not our money; it is the money which is paid by the citizens of the Community, some of whom elect us to this Parliament. In particular, I am very concerned about Parliament's own budget for 1993. The President-in-Office is well aware of my views on the subject. I reproached him on an earlier occasion with not being sufficiently rigorous in applying the pruning knife to Parliament's budget. I discovered there is a sort of conspiracy of silence between the institutions of the Community that they will not rock each other's boats; in other words, we do not cut each other's budgets. It is a matter of some regret that Parliament has sought to go right up to the permitted ceiling of 7 per cent. when there is absolutely no justification for that either in terms of the economic situation of the Community as a whole or indeed on the rate of inflation in the Community as a whole".

157
That is the view of a practitioner, although I venture to say so myself.
Indeed, I believe on an earlier occasion I outlined the position whereby there was an agreement between the officials of the respective institutions that the Commission would produce its starting requirements in its preliminary draft budget for the consideration of Parliament but that it would inflate them to a degree so that the Parliament could have the honour of reducing the Commission's budget and thereby, presumably, attracting the admiration of Members of this House and of the citizens of the Community for being so rigorous.
At the same time there is always a private agreement which I said existed between Members of the European Parliament, on the one hand, and the Council, on the other, that Parliament will not interfere with the Council's budget on the basis that the Council would not interfere with the Parliament. I am glad that the remarks I made from my own memory have now been confirmed nearly 20 years later. It shows that the procedure still operates.
It is not generally understood—although it will be by examination of the proceedings of the Parliament to which I invite your Lordships—that the whole trend within Parliament when it comes to budget time is not to prune expenditure. Under Article 206 of the old treaty, every year in respect of expenditure (cash limited expenditure, not expenditure that is regarded as compulsory) Parliament is always allowed a margin of increase. I can say from my own personal experience, which I am sure will be confirmed by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that the whole trend in the budget committee, in the budget control committee and in the Parliament itself is to get as much as possible of the permitted increase that is notified to them on 1st May every year. The urge is always to increase, not to decrease. If the noble Baroness can deny that on the basis of authentic evidence, I should be very glad to see it.
In my view, the European Parliament, which has many virtues upon which I should be quite prepared to enlarge at a more convenient time, is not a safe instrument for the supervision of the Commission or for the control arid monitoring of public expenditure. In fact, as a reading of the record will show, it does not really do that at all. Therefore, we are back to our own control; in other words, we are back to the control of member states.
I am sorry, once again, to have to refer in admiration to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. We need to return to the situation where, when it comes to expenditure, our Ministers of the Crown are prepared to say, emphatically, "No, no, no". It would do our country and our taxpayers much good and it would, perhaps, ease the misgivings that some of us feel about a Maastricht Treaty which gives even more powers to the non-elected executive and which maintains the dubious tranquillity of the Council of Ministers and of the members from member states that comprise it.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I feel that I should comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, the noble Lord raised so many issues in his most interesting speech
158
that, obviously, I shall not even attempt to reply to all of them. I should like to take the opportunity to thank him for his courtesy in informing me that in respect of this amendment he would be raising the role of the European Parliament. I am most grateful to him.
I should like to draw attention to what is actually in the Maastricht Treaty. I do so beca use I believe that that is the purpose of Report stage. It is actually changing the situation which we hope very much will give the European Parliament not only more authority and confidence but also more duty in order to fulfil its obligations in controlling the expenditure of the Community.
As noble Lords will know—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned this—it is the Council and the Parliament that have joint authority. There is an institutional agreement which stipulates a maximum sum beyond which the Parliament cannot increase the budget amount, however much it may wish to do so. Similarly, the noble Lord did not mention a most powerful power of the European Parliament; namely, that when it disapproves of the Council's ultimate recommendations, it cart reject the budget. I should like to remind noble Lords of the two occasions upon which it rejected the budget.
The first occasion took place amidst strong disagreement about the way in which the CAP was being implemented. Urgent reform was asked for because of the great expenditure in proportion to the rest of the budget. Perhaps one figure would reveal that about 90 per cent. was spent on agriculture out of the total budget in 1973, whereas it is now somewhere between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. I wait for the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to tell me the exact figure. However, according to the last figures that I saw, it is somewhere around 56 per cent. of the total Community expenditure. That means that the Parliament has pushed down expenditure on the CAP in relation to the rest of the budget, much of which comes back to the United Kingdom in the form of regional expenditure, and so on.
The second time that the Parliament rejected the budget was precisely on the basis of the United Kingdom's unfair contribution to it. Following that—although, of course, not because of that—we can express our deep gratitude to my noble friend Lady Thatcher not only for the way in which she was able to reduce the sum of our budget contribution to a certain level, but also for the way that that level has been maintained over the years since that time. That is one of the most important contributions that has been made so far as concerns the Community resources.
I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, about the 20 people. If may say so, I believe that to dwell on that point is to neglect the way in which the European Parliament works. Indeed, it is easy to make fun of an institution the functions of which very few people —perhaps, fortunately—know about. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will know—unless this did not apply in his day—only the leaders of each group on the budget committee are entitled to speak and they have a limited time in which to speak. They have to sit down after five or 10 minutes, or

159
whatever the period of time may be. Some of us might wish to adopt that procedure in this House, particularly as we have spent 41 minutes on this item. However, I do not intend to sit down immediately as I wish to draw attention to one or two points.
The new provision in Article 206 of the Maastricht Treaty states that the Parliament has a duty to receive financial statements from the Commission. The Parliament did not have that duty before. It can now demand financial statements as of right and there is an obligation on the Commission to produce all the details of its financial expenditure, for which of course it is responsible in implementing the budget. The Parliament also has a duty to demand from the Court of Auditors a financial report whereby it can now go into the detail of the way in which expenditure is incurred. Many noble Lords will be aware of the extent to which we in this House have relied upon reports from the Court of Auditors to inform us of some of the misdemeanours, mishaps and activities of the Community with regard to its finance. We would not otherwise have been aware of those activities. I welcome the provisions in the Maastricht Treaty which give not so much more power to the European Parliament but a deeper and stronger obligation to ensure that the finances of the Community are being used wisely and properly and to the benefit of the citizens of the Community and the United Kingdom taxpayer.
At this juncture I join with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in paying tribute to the assiduous work that has been carried out by John Tomlinson who is a Member of the European Parliament and who has produced report after report on the European budget and, recently, on the fight against fraud. While there is no one more assiduous than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in looking into the expenditure of the European Parliament—we should be extremely grateful to him for that as we must keep an eye on these things—I believe that matters will improve with the treaty. I hope that next year, when the treaty has been ratified and the Parliament can use its powers, a happier picture will emerge of the finances of the Community.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understood the amendment, and as I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, it seemed to be a discussion on the meaning of Article F.3 of the treaty. I listened to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington very carefully. I could not do other than that as he is sitting close behind me and he is not exactly noted for being a shrinking violet when expressing his views. His views tend to boom out in one's ear but I suppose they are no worse for that.
As I listened to my noble friend's polemic against the budgetary powers of the European Parliament it appeared to me that we had strayed a little from the subject under discussion. As my noble friend approached the 27th minute of his speech, I recollected an incident that occurred shortly after I went to New York to be the British Ambassador to the
160
United Nations. As was customary for a newly arrived ambassador, my predecessor gave me thumbnail sketches of the various personae who performed at the United Nations. For example, I was told that Ambassador X was sound on the Middle East but a little wobbly on nuclear weapons, or that Ambassador Y was terribly good except when he received instructions from his own government at which point he became unreliable. Ambassador Z had better remain nameless, but I fear that he came into my mind as my noble friend was speaking. My predecessor said of Ambassador Z "words fail me". I can only hope that at some date words will fail my noble friend too. I say that kindly, but after 37 minutes spent on the deficiencies of the budgetary procedures of the European Community when we were discussing an amendment which concerned the definition of Article F.3 of the treaty, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me for the thought that strayed gently across my mind.
The word "means" is either confined to money or it is not confined to money. As I understand the position, the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Tebbit, have entered into correspondence on this matter. I believe that "means" cannot be confined to money. If it were confined only to money, it is inconceivable that one could use that kind of catch-all provision (which drafters of treaties and international agreements are fond of including), to justify additional and extra expenditure either in those fields in which the treaty has already authorised expenditure, or—I understand the noble Lord is more concerned with my next point—to authorise expenditure in fields which are not covered by the treaty. I believe that the word cannot be construed in that way and it is inconceivable that it could be so used.
If "means" here means finance and money only, I would say, despite the strictures of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, that there are budgetary provisions in the treaties which are drawn up precisely to consider the way in which Community money is expended. Any Community money that is expended is by definition money that has to be expended in accordance with the terms of the treaties. To construe "means" in the way that at one stage it was being construed is, frankly, wrong. If the word "means" can be construedߞ
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I may be able to help the noble Lord here. It was my question which originally sparked off whether "means" was in that sense so constrained. It is clear from the letter which my noble friend wrote to me that it is not so constrained. I entirely accept that it includes finances, structures, organisations and policies. I believe it is easier to have a debate on that basis. I do not believe that the finances can be used for purposes which are not within the treaty. However I question whether and to what extent they can be shuffled within and what kind of organisations can be created.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am obliged for those remarks. In that case we can narrow the argument. We can forget about the money, the budget procedures and the powers of the European Parliament in

161
budgetary terms. Those are all matters which are important but the noble Lord's amendment is not concerned with them. If "means" includes the matters to which the noble Lord has just referred, I believe that Article F.3 is permissive rather than obligatory. In effect it says that the Community shall require general powers—which at some stage it may use—which can only be used in accordance with the treaties. Therefore by definition those powers must be powers which the treaty has provided should be there and available for use. I do not refer merely to this treaty but to the other treaties too. In that case I believe that the use of those powers, which have to be authorised by the treaties, is permissive rather than obligatory.
As I said a little earlier, this is a catch-all phrase. It is a kind of wind-up generality at the start of the paragraph that is headed "Common Provisions" in Title I. One should not forget in this respect that Article D of Title I provides that the European Council,
"shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof".
If "means" means what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, says it does—the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, accepts that definition —those means can only be employed in accordance with the treaty. Further, they could not therefore by definition be used to justify further expenditure. They can only be used in accordance with the general guidelines provided by the European Council. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has perhaps been raising issues here which are more apparent than real.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I think that we are now all agreed that it is quite clear that the word "means" does not only refer to financial means but also to structures, organisations and policies. In other words, the powers are totally open-ended and without limitation of either cost or scope and presumably are entirely beyond the control or scrutiny of national parliaments. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is correct in saying that they are permissive and not obligatory, but that makes them no less worrying.
It has been suggested, for example, that the powers to be allowed the new Union in consequence of the unrestricted scope of the term "means", or "moyens", could theoretically include the power to set up its own police force. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, alluded to that possibility. It would probably be an unarmed police force, but it would have the power to cross national frontiers in pursuit of enforcing the objectives of the Union.
If that theoretical possibility is a total non-starter it would be useful to have unequivocal confirmation of that fact from the Minister. However, I doubt that she will be in a position to give such unequivocal confirmation because however unlikely the formation of such a force might seem in the near future the drafting of the article is such that no such possibility can be ruled out entirely.
Reverting to the question of means in general, the United Kingdom should not be allowed to find, contrary to assumptions made by Ministers, that it has
162
been bounced into a wider obligation than it thought. We therefore need some legally watertight clarification.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this has indeed been an interesting debate on Amendment No. 29, or rather less on Amendment No. 29 than on other matters. Before I respond to my noble friend Lord Tebbit and his amendment perhaps I may explain to those of your Lordships who have not fully taken this in that I believe that we have discussed this subject because, although my noble friend Lord Henley and I had happily expected to have this debate last night on Amendments Nos. 14 and 15, those amendments were not moved and therefore the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has taken this opportunity to put on the record his very real anxiety about budgetary control. He knows that we share that anxiety in the sense that there should be improved budgetary control, but we do not share all his fears and many of his criticisms. I shall deal with some of those briefly in a moment, but only very briefly indeed.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described the matter to a "t" in his summing up of the situation. However, in order to quieten the fears of my noble friend Lord Tebbit perhaps I may deal with the specifics and the letter which my noble friend Lord Henley sent to him on 29th June.
During the debate which we had on Amendment No. 15 during the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Henley sought to explain exactly what was meant by "means". As my noble friend Lord Tebbit said, he subsequently wrote to my noble friend. I should like briefly to reiterate what was said in that letter. My noble friend Lord Henley made it clear that the word "means" contained in Article F.3 under Title I, "Common Provisions", is not confined to financial resources but refers to resources in the general sense.
It is important that the whole of Title I and the previous articles (Articles A to E) should be read in conjunction with Article F because, like those other provisions in Title I, Article F.3 looks forward to the substantive provisions of Titles II to VI. The reference to the Union providing itself with means in Article F.3 is explained and given substance, and also limitation, in the substantive provisions of the following titles. Therefore, the means by which the Union accomplishes the objectives set out in Article B are provided in terms of finances, structures, organisations and policies in Titles II to VI of the treaty. That is what I mean by reading the whole of Title I and not merely one part of it.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Tebbit that Article F.3 in no way commits the UK to agreeing increased resources for the Community to fund its activities. The structure of the treaty itself and the subsequent titles in the treaty to Title I ("Common Provisions") leave no room for ambiguity.
I noticed when my noble friend Lord Tebbit was speaking that he implied that the provision of means through Article F.3 brings Titles V and VI within the scope of the Bill. It does not. Article F.3 is part of Title

163
I, which is in the Bill only to the extent that it relates to Titles II to IV, which are the Community titles, not to the two pillars, which are Titles V and VI.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit also asked about the granting of further powers. He gave some examples of matters which concerned him. Article F.3 does not commit us to granting further powers or resources to the Community or the Union other than those expressly set out subsequently in the titles. That is why some moments ago I said that the reference to the Union placed a limitation in the substantive provisions of the following titles.
I must explain to those who may not have followed our debates in detail that the common provisions at the beginning of the treaty are an important lead in, but without the other titles of the treaty they could mean nothing. It is the other titles of the treaty which contain the powers.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit also asked me about Title VII, which relates to other provisions. Those provisions are incorporated in the Bill to the extent that they relate to community Titles II to IV. The reference in Articles A and B of Title I ("Common Provisions") in Article N.2 simply indicates that the European Community would need to consider whether any further provisions might be necessary to implement objectives which we have already decided upon and accepted. I believe that it is right that from time to time such a review should be undertaken, but the reference in no way prejudges the outcome of the review. Article N.2 simply provides that it should be so.
What I have said means that the anxieties which my noble friend Lord Tebbit expressed about purchasing arms for use in Yugoslavia or other equipment for a cordon sanitaire are not covered by Article F.3. He also went on to talk about the provisions of the pillar on justice and home affairs and quoted some of the K Articles. They are covered by their own subsections under Title VI.
I understand that my noble friend has real anxieties, but I can assure him that this is a limited provision, as both my noble friend Lord Henley and I have explained. It must be so because the Union itself has no financial resources.
Before I leave the subject perhaps I may say a brief word to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I know that he has been concerned about lack of scrutiny. But the documents detailing all budgetary proposals are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. The explanatory memoranda from the Government are presented by the Paymaster-General to Parliament, and the annual budget is debated in another place following the recommendations of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which examines all the budgetary documents in the explanatory memorandum. There is also the further scrutiny referred to by my noble friend Lady Elles, which occurs on a regular basis. While I agree that not all Members of the European Parliament are the scrutinising angels that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would have them be, there are those who work
164
exceedingly hard to scrutinise the expenditure. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, they raise many questions on exactly what the expenditure covers.
I believe that my noble friend put this down as a probing amendment. But because Article F.3 in no way commits the United Kingdom to agreeing increased resources for the Community, and because the structure of the treaty leaves no room for ambiguity as to what those means are, which are as explained in the letter sent to my noble friend on 29th June, I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment. I shall ensure that a copy of the letter from my noble friend Lord Henley is put in the Library, because it makes the position clear beyond peradventure.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I shall look carefully at what she said, in particular about Title VII and Titles V and VI and their relationship to the Bill and to the treaty. I shall consider it carefully alongside what she said last night, reported at col. 44 of Hansard. They are complex relationships. I believe that it is better to consider the issues at some leisure.
However, my noble friend replied with great skill and charm, as always, to a number of questions which I did not ask and failed to reply to questions which I did ask. I never raised the issue of whether the proposal committed us to increased expenditure. Such words did not escape my lips. It is quite clear that the provision does not commit us to such a thing. I did not ask whether it committed us to anything. I was inquiring whether the provision gave cover for the Community, through its appropriate institutions, to expand the treaty in the way that we have seen the predecessor treaties expanded.
For example, I asked a clear and specific question. I referred to Title VI, Article K.1(9) on page 84 of the treaty in which there is a reference to the European Police Office. Noble Lords will recollect that my noble friends Lord Henley and Lady Chalker referred specifically to the creation of organisations. I sought reassurance that that provision could not be enlarged to create an organisation of police officers who would report not to their domestic governments, nor to their national governments, but to an agency of the Community.
My noble friend did not reply to that question. The only reply she needed to have given was, "My noble friend is over-fanciful. There is no conceivable way in which such a thing could happen". Significantly, she did not give that answer. Unless she wishes now to give me that answer, I can only conclude that she did not do so because her brief does not allow her to do so.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should have referred to the same advice as I gave him in not taking Article F.3 apart from the remainder of Title I: that is, not to take any of the provisions of Title VI, Articles K, K.1, K.2, K.3 and so on without referring to Article K.9. I shall read Article K.9 to the House. It states:
"The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to

165
action in areas referred to in Articles K.1(l) to (6), and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it. It shall recommend the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
Article K.9 is the safety clause, and a very important safety clause, for any of the horror stories about which my noble friend Lord Tebbit seems to dream each night.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it will have been noted that my noble friend gave me quite a long and complex reply. She did not give me the answer no. She invited me to read the treaty, to interpret it and to consider the matter again. All I ask for is the reply, "No. It is not possible under the treaty for this to be done". I fancy that it is one of those occasions when, if the Minister does not say no, it is, as I have suggested, because the Minister's brief specifically excludes the possibility of saying no. I have in the past been on the Front Bench for a sufficient number of years to recognise when a Minister has a brief which says, "Do not say no", or even, "Do not say yes. Quote the complex matter back. Let them consider it again".
I invite my noble friend to say that it would simply not be possible to use Article F.3 in relation to Title VI, Article K.1(9) to establish an organisation of police officers who would be carrying out the objectives and policies of the Union and who would report not to their home governments but to a Community organisation. I do not say that I believe that we could be committed to that by the treaty. I am asking whether the treaty could be expanded to accomplish that if that was the will of Ministers in the Council at the time. I ask: yes or no?
The Earl of Onslow: And answer came there none.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I believe that the answer has been heard in the silence. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell Lord Hamilton of Dalzell moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Exchange Rate Mechanism
(". Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of imposing any obligation on Her Majesty's Government to place the currency of the United Kingdom within the Exchange Rate Mechanism or any comparable mechanism for fixing exchange rates.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to put into the Bill a new clause which reinforces what I understand to be the government's position: that they consider themselves to be under no obligation to rejoin the ERM, which is the stepping-stone to monetary union—and, I might add, the string which keeps the can of my noble friend Lord Tebbit attached to the back of the car.
I spent 20 years of my life between 1960 and 1980, working in the City. My work involved a study of the politics of British economic policy over the period. Alter all that happened then and since, it seems incredible to me that it is possible to contemplate the idea that a government could claim to be managing
166
the economy without having control over their exchange rate and hence their interest rates and monetary policy.
I believe that to be so regardless of the emphasis which a government might wish to give to any of the variables of economic policy available to them. Therefore, the more I think about the treaty, the more I come to the conclusion that that part of it in particular is an illusion, a conjuring trick and a confidence trick played either on the electorate or on our partners in Europe.
The provisions for monetary union are the key to the full Union envisaged in the treaty. The matter is straightforward for those noble Lords who welcome the vision of a single currency and the inevitability of a single government in Europe. They believe that it is the magic potion which will lead to the prosperity which eluded us during the time when some of them were in office. "More of the same, writ larger", is their nostrum.
Others see in the opt-outs that we have arranged the fact that we have no need to confront. the daunting constitutional questions that acceptance would entail. We can agree the treaty in principle but not in practice. I believe that to be the position of the Government; and I believe that it is a gamble. In my view it is an irresponsible gamble on 'which the Government have staked the constitutional rights of the British people to choose in an election the party offering economic policies they think will be best for them. Political control over financial matters by another place was, after all, the essence of the constitutional crisis of 1911.
In my opinion, the first gamble we have taken is that the system will not work. My noble friend Lord Caithness said in Committee:
"We will need to take account of any developments within Europe before the government of the day, of whichever party, decides whether or not to put forward a proposition… That is the advantage of the opt-out".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 380.]
In other words, let us first see whether it will work. But the Government have taken, and I quote my noble friend Lord Caithness again:
"a most active part in producing a treaty which has workable and practical conditions for a Stage 3 of economic and monetary union".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 380.]
If we thought that the conditions, which we took an active part in devising, were workable and practical, what reason did we give for opting out of them? This seems to raise a question of good faith which must be essential in a treaty. Can we morally stay out?
The second leg of the accumulator is that we can stay out of Stage 2—that is to say, ERM and economic convergence. Of course, before we get to Stage 3, we will have had to go through Stage 2 and had a fixed exchange rate for two years. There is nothing to stop this beginning at any time after nex t January, when the time appears to be right or we have a government in power who think that it would be a good idea —perhaps in five or 10 years' time.
It is easy enough to see, given a two-year period of calm in the currency markets, that the sleeping dog could metaphorically be chained and we would be back on course in the ERM. The time is therefore likely to come when phase 3 —the single currency—

167
will be back before your Lordships' House. What attitude will we take to it then? Will we turn it down on the grounds that it takes away the sovereignty of Parliament? Or will we be told that not to approve it will put us on the slow track in Europe; or that it is unconstitutional to resist the will of the elected government; or that by signing the Treaty of Union, we agreed to follow the path to union and this is just another step in that direction which we cannot now resist? Why not decide it now?
The third leg in this gamble is whether we can in fact stay out of Stage 2. Are we in reality immune from action by the European Court of Justice to compel us to join it under Articles 109M and 109J of the treaty? Your Lordships have heard the opinions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, confirmed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, that the supreme court in these matters is the European Court of Justice and not the House of Lords. They also said that the Court of Justice was in the habit of using a purposive construction of the regulations and provisions of the law with which it had to deal.
What, my Lords, is the purposive construction of the terms of Articles 109J and 109M on which other notable legal opinions have taken the view that they bind us to re-enter the ERM? It seems to me—and I intend no discourtesy to my noble and learned friend—that in matters concerning the supreme court his is no more than a legal opinion. He told us last night that there was only one thing certain in the law; and that was that 50 per cent. of litigants went away dissatisfied. We cannot afford to lose any of these bets. The amendment which your Lordships have before you dispels some of these uncertainties. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am very glad strongly to support this amendment which I think is wholly in keeping with the undertakings given by the noble Earl in the earlier stages of the debate. However impatient some noble Lords may be, they must believe that on this issue we have no other interest than to strengthen the Government's stand against EMU. Whether right or wrong, we believe in the desirability of this opt-out. Our anxiety is that we are not confident that it will be effective.
That lack of confidence has been intensified by the Minister's reluctance to say with the lack of equivocation that, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, gives his views, that the Government have a view one way or the other on the desirability of Stage 3 for the other members of the Community. We know where the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party stand on this matter. The Liberal Democrats are indiscriminately in favour and the Labour Front Bench at any rate is strongly in favour of EMU. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and other critics are opposed to both EMU and ERM.
We do not know what the Government's view is on the desirability of the single currency, whether for the other 11 or, in the longer run, including ourselves. We do not know whether they would still secretly prefer the old hard ecu which attracted a good deal of
168
support and would have provided a common or parallel currency alongside other currencies without federal strings. It would have been a perfectly satisfactory way of conducting international trade. We do not know—I should like to know very much—whether the Government accept the basic programme of the European People's Party, to which British Conservative MEPs are affiliated, which calls quite specifically for the creation of a single currency. The most that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would say in Committee was that the Government would make up their mind at the last moment when Stage 3 stares them in the face. We believe that is not a satisfactory stage at which to leave this argument.
According to the Minister's version in Committee on 23rd June (starting at col. 375 of the Official Report) British economic and monetary policy can continue exactly as at present up until the moment—December 1996 or January 1999 —when the Government would decide whether or not to proceed with Stage 3. Meanwhile, as I understand it conscientiously, he denied any obligation to rejoin the ERM or even to make the Bank of England independent. Even convergence (at col. 378) seemed to be a pure matter of choice. With, I thought, gay abandon, he declared that the question of moving to Stage 3 would be decided exclusively on what was,
"in the interests of the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 382.]
As I watch the noble Earl, I think sometimes that he is rather like a subaltern in the First World War. He throws himself above the trenches. He leads his troops forward with reckless disregard to danger on the assumption that the enemy is using rubber bullets or blank cartridges. He thinks that it is all dummy ammunition and that these kinds of questions are not to be taken too seriously. But we now know that there are minefields in the area he is moving towards. There are long-range shells with delayed action fuses that have already been set in motion, so to speak, by the Stuttgart Declaration, beloved of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is not here with us.
Leaving aside those hypothetical dangers, we come now to the detail of the Maastricht Treaty. I am not able to afford legal advice, and I do not have anonymous influential friends who will tell me anything worth knowing about the legal implications of these very complex matters. But I have a guide in a document by a lawyer with the famous name, Howe. It is not my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, but is, I believe, a nephew, Martin Howe:
"Monetary policy after Maastricht: How much independence will Britain possess?"
It seems to me to be totally persuasive. I look forward to the noble Earl pointing out where Martin Howe and I are in shared error. My informed guide points out that Articles 102 and 103 commit members to,
"conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the objectives of the Community",
and,
"to regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern".
The "subaltern", the noble Earl, in replying, said:
"economic and monetary union is nothing new. It has been on the Community's agenda since before we joined it".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 375.]

169
So the noble Earl's view is plainly that we can forget it and carry on, business as usual. That seems to be the particular reassurance that he provided on this occasion.
Alas, we then come to Article 109m. This binds us to treating our exchange rate policy "as a matter of common interest" throughout Stage 2 and under Stage 3, unless we join. Article 109e threatens us with assessments, multiannual programmes, opinions on exchange rate policy and recommendations on monetary policy. Yesterday, our Chancellor was up before ECOFIN to answer questions on our efforts to bring about convergence. It was not quite a firing squad; but nor is it wholly "dummy bullets". He has to give an account of his policy to satisfy our European partners.
It is plain that we are committed to taking convergence seriously, including honouring the intention and making the effort to join the ERM as a necessary qualification for deciding whether to enter Stage 3. It is not good enough for the Minister to shrug off such commitments as though they are no more than what the Prime Minister (in a different context, I agree) derided as "Euro-waffle". The intention of the treaty is plain, even to those of us who regard the whole enterprise as being misguided, unrealistic and doomed in any event to fail. Here we come to other dangers in no-man's land: what we say and think here is not as important as what our partners may think and how they will interpret the intention of these articles. While they struggle in their varying ways to conform to the convergence criteria, they will watch us carrying on, guided only by the national interest of the United Kingdom. It would not be perverse of them to accuse us of pursuing a narrow, nationalistic, non-communautaire policy, and of seeking an unfair competitive advantage by allowing our exchange rate to float. We may recall that when Hoover shifted its production from Dijon to Glasgow, we were accused of having an unfair advantage after we had withdrawn from the exchange rate mechanism.
I have to ask the noble Earl this question. What happens if one of our partners or the Commission takes us before the dreaded European Court, now fitted out with new powers to impose fines on defaulters? Shall we bear in mind, as we answer, the Stuttgart Declaration, which acknowledged the political objective of the European Court,
"its essential role to play a part in progress towards European union, by securing compliance with, and development of, Community law".
That is the frame of mind that the European Court will bring to a judgment of Britain's guilt or innocence on the matter of unfair advantage through a floating exchange rate.
We might bear in mind what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce acknowledged at Second Reading about what he called "the extended purposive interpretation of the Treaty of Rome", which was a commonplace part of the European Court's activities.
Our anxiety is a perfectly conscientious and serious one. It does not keep us all out of our beds every night, but it certainly bothers us as we look at this Bill and at the Maastricht Treaty. Our concern is that, faced
170
with the Minister's rather cavalier view about Stage 2, the court could find Britain in clear breach of Stage 2, without needing to call in aid the spirit of previous solemn declarations about transforming relations into a European union. It would need only to rely on the strict letter of the law as set out in the Maastricht Treaty.
We do not seek further easy assurances which the noble Earl produces with much grace from his briefcase, which is possibly stuffed full of assurances. We ask the noble Earl either to accept this amendment, to which he cannot object on the basis of the words I have quoted, or to put unequivocally on the record the Government's irreversible determination to refuse to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on the issue of rejoining the ERM before any decision may be made by Parliament to join Stage 3. Without an unequivocal pledge of that kind, we may have to call the Minister's bluff in the Lobbies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, this amendment does not exclude our joining the ERM. As I understand it, all it does is to lay down that no obligation to join the ERM will be imposed under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I believe it is important for noble Lords to bear that in mind.
I have always been a critic of the ERM. Not only did we have a disastrous experience of its working with the famous events of Black Wednesday, but I believe that it is in principle wrong. I suggest that it is wrong to tie the exchange rate of one's currency to any other currency or any other particular mark. One of the advantages of a floating and mobile exchange rate is that it helps very much the working of the economy.
It is obvious that if one has a bad period of trade and is in economic difficulties, a freely moving, exchange rate moves down. That of course helps to correct the tendency which one is suffering economically because it makes at the same time one's exports cheaper and one's imports more expensive. Therefore, it works automatically to restore the balance of payments and the position of the economy. Equally, if one is highly prosperous and doing extremely well, one's exchange rate goes up, and that again is to the benefit of the other countries with which one deals. It enables one to import from them in increased amounts and makes them deal in a more balanced way with you.
Therefore I believe that the ERM is a thoroughly bad thing. The Government have answered a number of questions since Black Wednesday. They indicated that they have no immediate or undue enthusiasm for rejoining the ERM, though they have not gone very far in disputing the possibility that at some later stage we might return to it. It seems to me very valuable that we should have this discussion. I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to give us a view on how the Government see the matter. If he keeps to the narrow terms of the amendment that will deal merely with the question of whether the Bill could be used to create an obligation. However, it would be helpful if he could go a little wider and indicate the Government's thinking on the general issue of the ERM. I do not ask him to prophesy into the indefinite

171
future but some indication that the Government are not likely to go back to the ERM in the near future would be very reassuring to many of us.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, I want to put a slightly contrary view to that of my noble friend who sits in front of me and with whom normally I agree. I do not want to argue with him about the desirability or otherwise of the ERM. One day I might argue with him, but I hope that it would be in a debate about that matter and not about the rather narrow point in this amendment. I hope very much that my noble friend will not, in his seductive words, force from my noble friend on the Front Bench too long a statement of policy on the Government's attitude to the ERM. That is not the point of the amendment.
The simple question is whether there is anything in the treaty which imposes an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to place the currency of the United Kingdom within the ERM or any comparable mechanism for fixing exchange rates. That is a question to which I thought we had already had an answer; namely, that there is not.
There is a requirement that any member state that wishes to go into Stage 3 must have been in the ERM and within the normal fluctuations for two years. But it seems to me—I should like to be assured of it—that that does not impose any obligation on us at this time, particularly in the light of the important option that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister successfully negotiated for us.
There are a number of other points, made in his usual discursive way by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to which on this occasion I shall not reply, other than to make my usual once a day bleat; namely, that I wish, in the proceedings in this House on the Bill, that we could obey the normal rules of order and conduct our debates with reference to the amendments on the Marshalled List and not with reference to the great issues about which we have many chances in wider debates to talk and about which we have happily talked and will continue to talk for many years to come.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Aldington suggested, I shall make my remarks absolutely relevant to the amendment. It seeks to increase our ability as a nation to resist being pulled into the exchange rate mechanism. That is what the amendment is about. Why should we want to do such a thing? It must depend upon whether or not we take the view that membership of the exchange rate mechanism is likely to be to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Therefore it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was absolutely right to spend some time discussing the merits of the exchange rate mechanism. If we all agree that it is a wondrous gift to mankind in general and the United Kingdom in particular, quite clearly we should have no truck with this amendment. But if we are inclined to the view that it is a dangerous device which has already done grave damage to the United. Kingdom, we should begin to consider whether or not this amendment should be supported.
172
I hope that my noble friend Lord Aldington will manage to restrain himself while I say just a word or two about the exchange rate mechanism.
It is now mid-July. It does not seem long ago—does it? —that we had the excitement of what has been so foolishly called Black Wednesday. I christened it Bright Wednesday and was much criticised by Ministers for going on the radio and saying with great glee, "And with one bound we are free." It is a song that has since been taken up at considerable length by Ministers. They have sung it very well indeed. My concern is to encourage them to keep singing. I like the tune, I like the words and indeed I like the results which have sprung from Bright Wednesday.
Until Bright Wednesday, there had, to be sure, been reports of green shoots appearing in the economy. But everyone of those reports later turned out to be false. There was not a green shoot in sight. I am sure that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Benches will agree that there was not a green shoot around. They told us so—frequently. Since then, one after another the green shoots have appeared. It is not yet an economic spring but it is much more encouraging than anything we saw before. We have had the encouraging news of the progress of the British motor industry, in stark contrast to the disasters that are befalling our competitors, who have chained themselves into the exchange rate mechanism. There has been news today of a further increase of 1.8 per cent. in industrial production, as my noble friend Lord Morris observed. That is very encouraging indeed.
We have what successive Chancellors have described as a competitive exchange rate. I ask: A competitive exchange rate? With what is it competing? With what is our exchange rate competing if it is not with the exchange rates of our commercial rivals? That is not a very communautaire thing to be doing, is it? It does not fit into the exchange rate mechanism. We are doing it and Ministers are proud of it. Quite contrary to the forecast that, were we to commit the terrible folly of leaving the mechanism, interest rates would soar to unprecedented heights, we found that interest rates fell. They went up in countries which stayed in the exchange rate mechanism. It seems to me that there is at least an argument that it may be beneficial for us to keep out of that mechanism.
I turn more closely to the amendment. I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. In my experience Mr. Kenneth Clarke is one of the most robust politicians that I have ever met. He seldom neglects a challenge to his views. I feel that he is almost incapable of turning aside from an argument. The concept of proffering the other cheek has not come into his experience. He is an extremely able man. The other day he was at the ECOFIN meeting. The reports that I received, and, indeed, some of those we saw in the press, suggested to me that he was not on his normal form. He did not turn to his fellow Finance Ministers as they lectured him on the British economy in the way that he would have turned to a consultant at Bart's Hospital who sought to lecture him on reforming the health service, nor to a teacher in a secondary school who might have lectured him on his education reforms.

173
He was unnaturally reticent and conciliatory. That is the kind of thing that worries me about a man. I like to see a man playing his natural game. As we have seen. there is no worse spectacle at a cricket match than a natural stroke-maker and aggressive player being sent in with an instruction not to be unduly unkind to the bowlers. Yet that seems to be what is now in the mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor.
Could it be that there is some constraint laid upon him which is preventing my right honourable friend from playing his natural game? There may be. Could it be that he is aware of the obligations which will flow from the Treaty of Maastricht to treat our exchange rate as a matter of common concern, rather as though M r. Botham were instructed by his captain to treat the number of runs he scores as a matter of common concern with the other team? It seems to have the same sort of effect on Mr. Clarke as it would have on Mr. Botham. I hope not. I hope that Mr. Botham would have remained robust, not least to his captain.
Of course, there could be the suspicion that Mr. Clarke is a robust supporter of membership of the exchange rate mechanism. That does not mean that he is a dishonourable man. There are many good and honourable men who believe that we should be in the exchange rate mechanism. It is a matter of judgment. But we are left puzzled. Is he behaving in that way because he wants to be in the mechanism but feels that it would be politically inexpedient? Is he behaving in that way because there is some constraint laid upon him? It is a matter of extremely interesting debate. But sooner or later we can be sure that, whatever he wants to do, he will be restrained by the provisions of the treaty.
We are frequently told of the marvellous protections which exist in the British protocol. So they do. It is an impressive list. Page 115, paragraphs 3 to 9 in particular, list all the exemptions from the earlier provisions. There is only one snag; they do not become operative until the United Kingdom gives notice that it does not intend to proceed to Stage 3. That is the rub. It can be argued that even after we gave such notice we would still be in the position of what I describe as the tin can attached to the tail of the dog—being dragged along by the policies of the other 11, distancing and insulating ourselves from any discussion on how those policies should be arrived at.
Those on the Opposition Benches have a powerful argument when they say that that would be a mistake. But until we trigger those protections the full rigour falls upon us, almost without exception. Perhaps therefore there is an opportunity for my noble friend—who may have taken further advice or gone for further and better particulars from his client, the Treasury, since we last debated the matter—to indicate when we can expect the Government to seek the protection of paragraphs 3 to 9 on page 115.
I hope that we shall be given some indication of that. Above all, I hope that when he replies we shall have a robust and clear statement from my noble friend that the provision is not needed. I hope that he will say with absolute clarity that there is no circumstance whatever arising from the treaty by
174
which any pressure or requirement can be placed upon the United Kingdom to re-enter the exchange rate mechanism under any form of duress. I should like him to say that Her Majesty's Government are convinced that a policy of fixed exchange rates would be a folly which we have committed in the past but which we have no intention of committing in the future. But I realise that that may have to remain merely a hope.
Perhaps more realistically we can expect my noble friend to reiterate in his robust terms the statement which was made by the Chancellor, that there is no prospect under any circumstances of a re-entry during the lifetime of this Parliament. That would be something. Above all, I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us that there is no way in which the provisions of the treaty could act as any form of duress and that the expression, making our currency and its exchange rate matters of common concern, is a meaningless jumble—a bit of dust in the treaty which can be assuredly and safely ignored by Ministers. In my view, our currency and its exchange rate should be matters of concern to the people of these islands and be governed by the policy of this Government and none other.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, that this is not the occasion on which to debate the merits of fixed rate mechanisms for exchanges or floating exchanges. I wish to say only two things. First, the argument is far more complicated and controversial than anything that has been heard so far in the debate. One has only to think of the arguments which led to the Bretton Woods agreement.
The second point I venture to make is this. Before one enters on vilification of our entry into the exchange rate mechanism, your Lordships would wish to hear the eminent statesman who advocated our entry and took us into it. I would add that the noble Earl was pestered when we last debated the matter to commit himself on what the position might be in a few years' time.
A famous statesperson was recently reported as saying, "Never take a political decision until you have to". That is eminently the case here. None of us knows what the economic state of the world will be in two or three years' time. The noble Earl would be very much amiss if he committed himself on the line that he has been pressed to do, so I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, in yesterday evening's debate I ventured to suggest to your Lordships that we should have a little more discipline in our proceedings. I am rising now because my noble friend Lord Tebbit has invited my noble friend on the Front Bench to explain to the House that there is no need for my noble friend's amendment and to give my noble friend the necessary assurances in that regard.
But, in my submission, the starting point should be whether the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the other noble Lord who have proposed this amendment have

175
satisfied your Lordships that there is a need for the amendment. In order to do so, my noble friend should identify to your Lordships the clause in the Bill where there is a threatened obligation on Her Majesty's Government to join the exchange rate mechanism. Moving into the treaty, and Title VI, the proponents of this amendment should then show your Lordships with precision which article carries this "obligation" which is the concern of my noble friend. What is most noticeable is that at no stage in this debate have the proponents of this amendment identified to your Lordships any clause in the Bill or any article in the treaty where their fear lies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think that I can help my noble friend Lord Hacking. My noble friend Lord Hamilton, in moving this amendment, has cast doubt on the Government's contention that we are free to stay out of the exchange rate mechanism for the foreseeable future. I think that the usual expression which we hear from Her Majesty's Government is that "We have no intention of rejoining the ERM during the lifetime of this Government"—which I trust will last until at least 1996 or later.
A number of us fear that Britannia will not be able to say "No" to eventual monetary union after all the preliminary activity contained in the Union Treaty. Be that as it may, this amendment seeks to prevent us from having to return to the ERM without the consent of Parliament. Returning to the ERM would be the first definite step of such preliminary activity. A number of us believe that we shall in fact be obliged to make that first step; indeed that we shall make it if we ratify the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht.
It might be that some of your Lordships would not be inclined to accept this view from a humble international insurance broker such as myself, although I have to say that my profession does bring me daily into contact with the forces of our currency markets. In those circumstances I must apologise for the fact that I have again consulted an expert, although, unlike the legal experts I referred to earlier today, I am happy to reveal his identity this time. The expert in question is Professor Charles Goodhart, who is the Professor of Banking and Finance at the London School of Economics. But he is more expert than that, because he was chief economic adviser to the Bank of England from 1980 to 1985, and so I trust that my noble friend and the Government will take his opinion very seriously.
Professor Goodhart has been consulted about the question of our return to the ERM under the Union Treaty. He has also read the excellent booklet by Martin Howe entitled Monetary Policy after Maastricht, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, paid such a learned tribute. Professor Goodhart gives the following opinion, and I quote:
"Article 109e(2) of the Maastricht Treaty requires each member state to adopt, before the start of Stage 2 of monetary union on 1st January 1994, a multi annual programme of convergence for achieving economic and monetary union. I consider that this article, read in conjunction with Article 109j(1), which sets out the 'convergence criteria' for entry to
176
the third stage, will oblige the UK either to give a date in its multi annual programme for intended return to the Exchange Rate Mechanism or at least to set out clear criteria for such a return, and to express a statement of intent to work towards that".
Those are not my words, but the words of someone who is really very well versed in this subject. Assuming that Professor Goodhart has got this right, can my noble friend tell us whether the United Kingdom intends to make such an expression of intent or whether it does not? Could I ask him also to say how much weight Her Majesty's Government will attach to that statement, assuming that under the Union Treaty we are obliged to make it?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I start by saying that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, about two things. It is perfectly reasonable to be discussing the exchange rate mechanism and I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking: there is tremendous pressure in the treaty to get us to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. One reason I say that is because I take EMU to be the central part of a very important treaty. I also assume that we are not dealing with a dishonourable or disreputable government. Even though it has got the opt-out, it does not mean that we have opted out: it means that we are taking all this very seriously indeed. So I do not for one moment reject the notion that we should look at this.
I go further. I favour returning to the exchange rate mechanism. I find myself in a tiny minority at the present time. I can only remind your Lordships that at about this time last year I was one of an enormous number of people who favoured being in, including the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the current head of the Treasury and the current chief economic adviser to the Treasury. The Treasury itself has published more than one paper saying that the exchange rate, according to purchasing power parity and competitiveness criteria, was a competitive exchange rate, and so on. The only difference is that I still hold to my view, because I am not easily swayed, particularly on intellectual matters, by very short-term considerations. Equally, I fully accept that there are others, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointed out, who have never believed in the exchange rate mechanism. That seems to me to be a valid point. What I find difficult to live with is the fact that there are those who thought that it was marvellous to start with but that it was marvellous not to have it any more. I find that a very unattractive frame of mind.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He can very properly place me in the category of those who were relatively agnostic about it, to the extent that I went along with our admission to the exchange rate mechanism but since then I have concluded that it was not a worthwhile exercise.
Lord Peston: My Lords, of course I accept what the noble Lord says. I wanted simply to point out that I

177
am very puzzled at how opinion, particularly expressed by certain people, is swayed. The central issues are those which have been raised, and I think it is right to take a view on this. I actually believe, as opposed to other noble Lords, that what is in the treaty and in earlier treaties was right. I believe that economic policies are a matter of common concern to those of us who are in the European Community. I believe that exchange rates are a matter of common concern, and ought to be. I again accept that there is an alternative view. What bothers me is that there are those who cannot decide between either and want to blow it. I would not wish noble Lords to misunderstand my position. My view and that of most of my noble friends is that this is something that we favour.
In this connection I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, went slightly too far when he referred to the Government's stand against EMU. As I understand the Government's position, and perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will tell us more about this, the Government have no stand against EMU. As I understand the position, they are undecided. That is a very difficult position when it is undecided about what to do. It would totally change the nature of economic debate in this country if we were to be told that the Government are actually against EMU. However, as I understand it, they are not. To go back to the point that I made earlier, I do not believe that noble Lords can wriggle out of this by saying that none of it will happen, so let us pretend that none of it will happen. We really have to take a view, as I do and as those who disagree with me do.
Chapter 4, Article 109j, is the transitional provisions part of the treaty and is central to the whole matter. That transitional provision states that we have to be in the exchange rate mechanism for two years—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, has already drawn attention to that—and within the narrow bands. If we take the view that we are not going to do that, that is equivalent to saying that we have already taken a decision on EMU. It is the same thing. Therefore, we should he back in the ERM at an appropriate exchange rate and proceed from that point. What I find totally mystifying—unless we assume that this Government are going to fall any day now—is the statement by the current Chancellor of the Exchequer that we shall not enter the exchange rate mechanism within the lifetime of the present Parliament. That is the same as saying that we are going to exercise the EMU opt-out because by then it will he too late.
There is a great deal I would like to say as regards the case for ERM and EMU, but I accept that this is not the occasion. What I, and the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit, and Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, would wish to do, is flush out the Government on where they stand. We have at the moment the preposterous position of needing to pursue a serious economic policy with a Government that will not make a serious statement on the matter. We cannot go on like that.
Needless to say, I oppose the amendment, but for obvious reasons. I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I do not accept that
178
nothing in this Act shall have a certain effect, and so forth. There is a great deal in the Act which puts pressure on us to rejoin the ERM and to proceed to EMU. Putting the matter at its mildest, I shall be rather surprised if there is no pressure on our Government to do something about it when the finance Ministers and Prime Ministers meet. Where we differ is that I favour such pressure and want to see it effective; but other noble Lords disagree. One thing we do agree is that we should like a yes or a no on this issue instead of the continuous greyness which we constantly experience from the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, unlike my noble friend, I support this amendment. It is very necessary to get some kind of statement from the noble Earl this evening. To date, government statements as to what we shall do in future as regards ERM have been very equivocal indeed. Statements from the noble Earl himself have been equivocal. Despite what has been said by a number of noble Lords, at this particular juncture it is right for us to gel a proper statement from the Government. The decision whether we re-enter the ERM is going to have such a wide and important effect on our economy, either within EMU or without it, that it is necessary for noble Lords to understand exactly what it means.
My noble friend Lord Peston has pointed out that it is legitimate for us to be discussing this particular amendment in the context of the treaty. In Article 109j there hangs the peg for future entry or re-entry into the ERM. The noble Earl will know perfectly well that I have been, and always have been, opposed to our entry into the ERM because I believe, and believe correctly, that it would do extreme damage to our economy. That has proved to be the case. Therefore, he cannot grumble about people like myself who now say that we want an unequivocal statement from the Government that nothing in this treaty—or at least that he believes that there is nothing in the treaty—will compel us to go back into a system which caused such damage, particularly to our manufacturing industry.
I say not only to the noble Earl but to my noble friend, that wherever fixed exchange rates have been tried for any length of time in recent economic history, they have failed. As they know, the gold standard failed miserably; the Bretton Woods system collapsed under its own weight; and the ERM, as we know, is collapsing at the moment. It did this country extreme damage economically. So the system of fixed exchange rates is too rigid and hurts the economy of each of the countries to which it applies. There is no economic system that I know of that can keep rigid parities between exchange rates without bringing in turn a rigidity of economic performance. That rigidity usually means that instead of improving the economy. it stagnates, causing unemployment and the loss of businesses. Therefore, it hurts all of us in that way.
Within the context of Europe, if we have a fixed exchange rate that would not eliminate the movement of money around the world between other countries or blocs. It could very well mean that, because we were within the European monetary system and the ERM, people were speculating against our economy which might be strong because they needed to do so against

179
Italy's economy which was weak. That is a damning indictment of a system inherent in this treaty. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us the assurance that nothing in this treaty compels us to go back into the ERM which, as he knows, and as I am sure he will admit, has been so damaging to our economy, to the unemployed and to business.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have had a most interesting and very wide-ranging un-Reportlike discussion on this amendment. There have been two distinct strands. I believe that about 99 per cent. of the discussion has been about the ERM and where we should go in that regard, and about 1 per cent. has been about the amendment itself. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has said. The fixed exchange rate and the single currency between England and Scotland has stood the test of time quite well. I remember when the Labour Party devalued the English pound I tried to pretend that the Scottish pound had not been devalued at all. It did not seem to wash.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Does he realise that there are many people who believe that EMU between Scotland and England, and in particular between Ireland and England, was a disaster because it led to the depopulation in two of those countries?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord knows of the enormous benefit to Scotland and England from having Scotland as part of a single currency. As he also knows, the Scots did so much to boost the City of London to make Britain such a wonderful place and a very good place in which to live.
7 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who has made an excellent point about EMU in the United Kingdom: it is only possible because we have political union. In that, he is endorsing what Chancellor Kohl has said—that monetary union without political union is impossible. We have experienced that in the United Kingdom, have we not?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I was talking specifically about fixed exchange rates, a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised. He said that they had not worked well, but I was giving one example of where a fixed exchange rate had worked extremely well and for the benefit of both countries.
Perhaps I may deal now with the amendment rather than with the ERM. The Maastricht Treaty nowhere imposes any obligation on sterling to rejoin the ERM. I made that absolutely clear earlier. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his place. If he refers to col. 381 of Hansard, he will see that when he raised the question of our rejoining the ERM as a condition of Stage 2, I dealt with that point when I said:
"Of course there is no requirement during Stage 2 for us to rejoin the ERM. I know that the noble Lord will have read the
180
treaty. If he can find anything in it that commits us to do so, he is a better man than I".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 381.]
I have warned my office, the office of my noble friend Lady Chalker, the Treasury and my wife and children to have a pad and pencil beside the telephone in case the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rings to tell me that he has found something in the treaty that commits us to rejoining the ERM under Stage 2. I must tell your Lordships that my telephone has been silent, just as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has been silent in the debate today.
What is true within the treaty is that membership of the narrow band of the ERM is one of the preconditions of eligibility for a move to Stage 3, but that is all. In the absence of an obligation to be or to remain a member of the ERM, member states are therefore free to decide whether or not to join or rejoin.
I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I disagree with him. I refer him to the EMI statute and Article 3(1) which clearly states that monetary policy remains in the hands of national authorities during Stage 2 of EMU. This would scarcely be compatible with an obligation to rejoin the ERM. The United Kingdom's position is further protected by the UK protocol which states that if we notify the Council that we do not intend to move to Stage 3—and here I quote—
"The United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law".
That again shows that it would be inconsistent with this provision if the UK could be compelled to rejoin the ERM.
If the intention had been to impose an obligation to be or to remain a member of the ERM, it would have been only too easy to put that in the treaty and to say so, but the treaty does not state that. Nothing in the treaty imposes an obligation on sterling to rejoin the ERM.
I listened with great care to what my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, had to say about ERM, but I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was correct in saying that the whole question of the possible rejoining of the ERM is far more complicated and far wider than the scope of our debate today. I look forward to having that debate with my noble friends and with noble Lords opposite at any time. As your Lordships know only too well, we have had such a debate previously and we shall do so again in the future. However, today is not the occasion to go into that matter in the detail that many of us would like.
I listened with increasing sadness to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, whom I had admired. His selective and partial quoting did not do him justice. I can assure him, as I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson, that the Howe opinion, to which he referred, was dealt with extremely effectively in the Treasury's submission to the memoranda of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Knowing that the noble Lord pays attention to detail, I am sure that he has read that document.

181
On the question of convergence, perhaps I may advise the House that this is not something new that has happened as a result of the Maastricht Treaty. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, is well informed and he will know that this has been the case since 1991 and the Luxembourg European Council.
I should like to take up one other point on which I felt that the noble Lord did not do justice to his case. He referred to Article 109m and said that we must use our exchange rate policy as a matter of common interest. If the noble Lord had fully completed the quotation from col. 377 of Hansard, he would have seen that I went on to say:
"those are almost exactly the same words as in Article 107 of the Treaty of Rome, which for decades has required us" to treat exchange rate policy as a matter of common concern". —[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 377.]
The words "common concern" are exactly the words that my noble friend Lord Tebbit used. He has been used to that expression. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, is against the Treaty of Rome, but he must make that absolutely clear. I assure the House that this is not something that has come about as a result of the Maastricht Treaty. It is something to which we have been used and which we knew about before we signed up to the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Incidentally, I am not against the Treaty of Rome, although I find some parts of it unattractive. However, I really am puzzled because if we say that our exchange rate is a matter of common interest and if we then say, "No, we shall conduct our policy in the exclusive interests of the United Kingdom", there is immediately a certain element of looking both ways and of saying one thing at one time to our European partners and something else more reassuring back in the United Kingdom. The noble Earl has not dealt with my argument that our partners can interpret a Boating exchange rate as an unfair competitive instrument against their own economies. It seems to me that it is still open to them to do that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. We have been in a situation where we have been treating our exchange rate policy as a matter of "common concern" for many years. We have been out of the exchange rate mechanism. We have been in the ERM, and now we are out of it. Other countries were in it, but are now out of it, while some have not even joined it. I do not see the difficulty which the noble Lord tends to see in this matter.
I should now like to deal briefly with the United Kingdom's attitude towards the ERM. I can do no better than quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he said in the House of Commons on 9th June:
"Certainly, I could not recommend that sterling return at present. We should need greater convergence between the monetary policies appropriate for all the Community economies, and we should need to be satisfied that the system would be operated to the benefit of all its members.
182
In January, I made it clear that those circumstances would not apply this year. I now doubt whether they will apply for some years ahead—possibly they will not apply in this Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/93; col. 302.]
I can add nothing to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said.
My noble friend Lord Tebbit asked me to be robust in my reply. I must tell my noble friend that I shall be as robust to him as I was in Committee. I shall quote again from the Official Report because my noble friend likes to do so, and so do I. I refer to col. 376, when I said:
"I wish to take up a point made by my noble friend Lord Tebbit with regard to the ERM and the question of whether the ratification of Maastricht will require sterling to rejoin the ERM.
As we have repeatedly made clear, the treaty does not contain any such obligation".—[Officiol Report, 23/6/93; col. 376.]
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will answer a question. Paragraph 4 on page 115 of the protocol states:
"The United Kingdom shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law".
But that provision is not triggered until we have given notification of our intention not to proceed to Stage 3. Does that mean that until we have given that notification the provisions of paragraph 4 stating that we shall retain our powers are not valid?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, of course not. My noble friend has not studied with as much care as I should have hoped the EMI statute in the treaty which clearly states that it is a matter of national interest.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the noble Earl referred to me twice in reiterating—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is out of order. He did not speak before the Minister.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I believe that it would be in order for me to press my noble friend on the question that I put to him as to whether he agrees with the opinion which I quoted from Professor Charles Goodhart. I can do no better than to repeat it.
Noble Lords: No, no!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, well, simply then, I understand the pressure of time upon your Lordships, but the opinion of that eminent man is that the Maastricht Treaty will oblige the UK either to give a definite date in its multi-annual programme for intended return to the ERM or at least to set out clear criteria for such a return and to express a statement of intent to work towards it before 1st January 1994.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not deal specifically with the point raisedrby my noble friend Lord Pearson. I thought that he would have understood that I dealt with it when I was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, because he linked what he was saying with the Howe opinion. I had said that the H owe contention

183
was effectively demolished by the Treasury in its submission to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, actually Professor Goodhart is not—
Noble Lords: No, no.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. What divides us is that some of us like the idea of the ERM and monetary union while others do not. What joins us together is that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, feels, as I do, that despite the fact that he has no fears of the ERM or monetary union, we shall inevitably be pressured into it in the long run. I accept the assurances of my noble friend Lord Caithness that he can find bits of the treaty which say that we definitely do not have to join, whereas I can choose other bits of the treaty which seem to say the opposite. In that regard, I take the view of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. As it is, all one has to do is cross one's fingers and hope that we do not find ourselves in the situation by mistake.
I fully appreciate that the party opposite could take us straight into all those things, and the amendment would not prevent that. Nonetheless, it would be a tragedy if we found ourselves in the system by mistake. I am anxious about what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor calls the purposive interpretation of those issues, which we have seen before. A great deal of what we are discussing is known to come forward into legislation from the Treaty of Rome. It has been sleeping there for years and suddenly emerges. As I can see that my noble friend the Whip is looking enthusiastic about dinner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Assurances made to Parliament by Her Majesty's Government
(". If, in the course of implementing the Treaty on European Union, it is found that any statement or assurance about the Treaty or its intended operation made by any Minister of the Crown to either House of Parliament and not corrected or withdrawn in that House before the commencement of this Act—

(a) was incorrect at the time when it was made; or

(b) is subsequently rendered ineffectual by any interpretation of the Treaty by any court of law of the United Kingdom or by the European Court of Justice; or

(c) is subsequently rendered ineffectual by any action within any of the institutions of the Community which Her Majesty's Government is unable or unwilling to prevent;

then Her Majesty's Government—

(a) shall forthwith enter into negotiations with the other Member States of the Community to change Community law so that it corresponds to the position as represented in the statement or assurance in question; and

(b) shall not agree to any further revision of the Treaty of Rome until such alteration to Community law shall
184
have been made or unless the revision proposed shall contain a binding commitment to make such alteration.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when discussing Amendment No. 29, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and I did not receive from the Government the assurances for which we had hoped, from which your Lordships will be able to draw your own conclusions. However, during the course of the Bill's long scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament, Ministers have given soothing assurance after soothing assurance that things are not as sweeping, all-embracing or ominous as they seem; that certain potential threats to our economy, or parts of it and to our traditions or way of life will never become a reality; that we should definitely never be forced back into the ERM in consequence of our obligations under Stage 2, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just told us for the second or third time; that our opt-out of Stage 3 can be sustained in practice as opposed to theory; that the European Court will cease interpreting the numerous grey areas and ambiguities in the treaty to the disadvantage of the declared intention of the Government to oppose the evolution of a federal state or, worse still, a unitary state, and so on and so forth.
I do not for a moment doubt that Ministers have given those assurances in good faith, infused though those assurances may be with a hefty dose of optimism. If any fingers were surreptitiously crossed at the moment that the assurances were given, that surely indicates a hope that luck will be on the Government's side rather than any desire to be economical with the grim reality.
I am prepared to believe that most—perhaps all—Ministers are as opposed to the idea of the UK being subsumed into a federal state, as are those of us who support the amendment, and that only the Liberal Democrats, plus a few Conservative Back-Benchers and perhaps a rather larger number of Labour noble Lords and honourable Members from both Front and Back Benches, would rejoice if the Government's assurances about maintaining what is left of our national independence proved over-optimistic.
However, we know from bitter experience just what tends to happen to the best laid plans of fallible men, particularly where the EEC is concerned. Like my noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross, I intend to go on using all three letters (EEC) until such time as it becomes illegal to do so in a few weeks' time.
Until now we have had to shrug off those disappointments when the expectations proved to be false. But Amendment No. 31 would give us a chance to retrieve the situation, to some degree at any rate. It is a clear and self-explanatory amendment. To précis it, if it is found that any assurance about the treaty made by any Minister of the Crown was incorrect at the time when it was made, or is subsequently rendered ineffectual by any interpretation of the treaty by any court, not least the European Court of Justice, or is subsequently rendered ineffectual by any action by one or more of the Community institutions, then Her Majesty's Government must forthwith enter into negotiations with other member states to change Community law so as to correspond to the assurances

185
originally given. That is backed up by the fact that Her Majesty's Government shall not agree to any further revision of the Treaty of Rome until such alteration to Community law shall have been made. What could be fairer than that?
If the amendment is accepted—and I hope that it will be —it would reassure those who might be in two minds about the treaty and who might be wondering through which Lobby they should troop tomorrow evening. Therefore, I believe that the Government will think it wise and reasonable to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am bound to say that I regard the amendment as a constitutional outrage. When one has sat through all the Second Reading speeches and the whole Committee stage, and heard so much about parliamentary sovereignty and the rights of Parliament, to put in the amendment a deliberate attempt to bind successive Parliaments to what they should do in the event of an assurance given in good faith by Ministers proving not to be capable of being implemented because there has been a change of circumstances, or what have you, I find a most astonishing proposition.
I can well understand that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, from the Cross-Benches would wish to bind this Government so far as concerns their assurances. I share his view of many of the things the Government have said. I am sure that some of them were incorrect when they were said and an awful lot of them were rendered ineffectual. But they were not rendered ineffectual by the European institutions. But to say that in that event what the noble Lord has put into his clause should, so to speak, be triggered so that it brings all Community activity by the UK to a complete stop, I find outrageous on sovereignty grounds. In terms of practical politics, I find it totally fanciful.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, not for the first time I find myself in considerable agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I say that because my experience is that none of us is perfect. We sometimes make errors; we sometimes have to correct those errors; but we do so. We do not need the legislative form such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to make us do so. I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that one can make mistakes. It is not difficult, standing at this Dispatch Box, cross-questioned, taunted and teased by Members of the Opposition, to begin with, that occasionally words do not come out in the right order. When it happens behind me as well from a third flank, it becomes all the more complicated and one needs to have eyes in the back of one's head in order to know what will happen next.
To be serious, because the noble Lord, Lord Monson, proposed Amendment No. 31 in all seriousness, I assure your Lordships that Ministers always seek, so far as is humanly possible, to give clear and correct interpretations of Community obligations. We do all that we possibly can, when proposing to accept new international obligations, to make sure that the text means what we believe it to mean. There
186
have been occasions when, for example, the Commission—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will remember occasions such as this—has interpreted the treaty in a way that a member state had not anticipated. That occurred in our case when Article 128 of the Treaty of Rome on general principles of vocational training was used to introduce specific measures in the field of education. Many of your Lordships will know that for us that was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. In our opinion it was a loophole and we sought to close that loophole at the next available opportunity. That next available opportunity was afforded to us by the Maastricht Treaty as implemented by this Bill.
Article 126 of the Maastricht Treaty codifies and clarifies Community competence in the field of education. It lays down specific guidelines as to what the Community can and cannot do and excludes harmonising measures. Arid so, by using Article 126, we have succeeded in preventing the use of a general principle to introduce specific measures in the wider field of education.
Likewise, as regards new provisions. on health, consumer protection and culture, we have once more built specific guidelines into the Maastricht Treaty. I believe that that is the sensible way to go.
I understand the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. However, I should say to him that, if loopholes of the kind that I have mentioned become apparent, then the Government use every means at their disposal to put the matter right. I do not believe that there is any way in which there needs to be a legislative requirement to do so. It is the job of government to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. He may have described the amendment in rather colourful language but he is absolutely right. It would be an outrage if government were not left to put those matters right, as they must surely do.
In preparing for this amendment I sought, although I found it impossible, to search through all the doings and comments of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. He is not in his place and so I cannot talk about his doings and comments but I am sure that there have been occasions in his days on which, with the very best advice and the very best of intentions, he gave an assurance at the Dispatch Box in another place and subsequently he found that it was not quite as he wished it to be. I did not have the resources to research how he dealt with such occasions but I can remernbeir some of his famous comments in another place. Therefore, it is not just those of your Lordships who disagree with the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, but also noble Lords who agree with him who will have faced that situation and will realise that the amendment is not necessary to correct what may need to be corrected from time to time.
I believe that a requirement of the kind proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would be damaging to the whole operation of the Community because it could not operate in one country alone. Let us imagine that similar amendments were introduced into the domestic law of our partners—because that is what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, asks us to do. A

187
Continental Minister under pressure might have said at some point that the government in question would not countenance a relaxation of any kind in agreed Community environmental standards. I give that purely as an example. The legislative provision would then operate to obstruct debate. For example, that would prevent the review—a review which is going on at this very moment—to introduce new flexibility into the operation of the drinking water directive. That would impede and completely mess up a very positive and constructive issue being tackled on a Community basis.
I must consider how the proposed amendment might operate were there to be a change of government, when incoming Ministers, who might have argued against Ministers in a former Administration on a particular point, sought to carry out their policies which might have been manifesto commitments. According to this amendment, they will be quite unable to do so and, if others moved in the direction of that policy, they would be required to hold the Community to ransom until their partners desisted.
In debate it is extremely easy in a chamber such as your Lordships' House or in another place to be asked to give one-word answers. There was an example two amendments ago. My noble friend wanted me to give an assurance that Article K.1(9) would not be used in conjunction with Article F.3 to create a European police force conducting cross-border operations. I did not answer then, not for the sinister reasons which were implied but because I do not wish to give unconsidered answers to hypothetical questions. I will answer noble Lords when I have had an opportunity to think about their questions, particularly if they are hypothetical. That is the very area in which the amendment would operate and it might create a most disastrous situation.
I shall write to my noble friend Lord Tebbit, as he is not in his place, about Articles K.1(9) and F.3 and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library so that all may read it. Whether it be a hypothetical question, which that was, or a real question, Ministers are extremely careful to try to give a fully honest answer but a direct answer. I can only say how grateful I have been to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who happens also not to be in his place. He has said on a number of occasions how grateful he is for the direct answers that we have given from this Dispatch Box.
The kinds of undertakings which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seeks are quite honestly not properly enshrined in legislation. I assure him that not only I but also my noble friends on the Government Front Bench are very careful as regards what is said. Should a Minister inadvertently mislead the House or another place, I know that the matter is corrected at the earliest possible opportunity.
This amendment is not only unnecessary but it would also lead us down paths which would be very complicated indeed, particularly when one considers how it would complicate issues for future governments. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson,
188
while not being a Member of the Opposition Front Bench, would not wish to tie the hands of future governments. Therefore, he will understand why there is a constitutional objection to the amendment. I sincerely hope that he will withdraw it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, first, I must say that I am rather surprised by the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I should have thought that the Labour Party would be delighted at the chance, at some unspecified time in the future, to draw attention to the mistakes of a Conservative Government. One can only conclude that they are so besotted with everything emanating from Brussels that they are prepared to abandon the adversarial role that the Opposition normally plays.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, for her very full, detailed and considered reply. However, I cannot agree with her that there is any question of trying to hold the rest of the Community to ransom. In my view, there is no question of frequent revisions and alterations to the Treaty of Rome. But, of course, if they happened on an annual basis—heaven forbid!—that might be the case. However, that is not so. I do not believe that the amendment goes as far in that direction as the noble Baroness imagines. Perhaps she should read it more carefully.
I am also surprised that the Government are so cool about the matter. If the amendment were accepted, it would help those noble Lords who are very much in two minds about the benefits or otherwise of the treaty. If they felt reassured by the acceptance of the amendment they might, perhaps, troop through the Lobbies in support of the Government tomorrow. However, so be it. It also seems to indicate a certain lack of confidence on the part of the Government in their own judgment, together with a suspicion that their own assurances are by no means as well founded as they claim.
My purpose was not to highlight Ministers' misjudgments; indeed, no one on these Benches wishes to do any such thing. We all make mistakes and every government makes mistakes. Moreover, I do not think that the present Government make any more mistakes than their predecessors. My purpose was simply to provide a means for putting things right to the great benefit of everyone in the country of whatever political persuasion. However, as everyone is clearly eager for the gastronomic delights that await us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begin again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill
7.32 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to help in bringing forward this extremely useful legislation. I am sure that we are all deeply grateful to the honourable Member for Basingstoke who picked up on some of the major recommendations put forward by the Noise Review Working Party in 1990, and who has drafted a Bill which I believe responds admirably to them.
The Bill is not over-ambitious. Noise is an extremely complex subject and there are many kinds of noise nuisance which a Private Member's Bill could not hope to solve. Instead, the Bill concentrates on particular areas of concern and provides a detailed and practical solution to them.
I turn now to the main elements of the Bill, of which there are four. First, there is noise in the street; secondly, loudspeakers in the street; thirdly, burglar alarms; and, fourthly, a more certain way for local authorities to recover the cost of abating statutory nuisances. The first element of the Bill is designed to tackle the problems of noise in the street. It may be helpful if I explain to your Lordships the reasons for that by outlining some of the kinds of noise with which the Bill seeks to deal.
Currently, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives local authorities powers to deal with noise that is emitted from premises. Where noise arises on the street, however, the provisions of the Act do not apply. That means that there is nothing that local authorities can do about street noises such as vehicle alarms, noisy DIY car repairs, and noisy generators and refrigerator motors even though those noises can cause a great deal of inconvenience to many people. One of the main purposes of the Bill is, therefore, to extend the noise provisions of the Environmental Protection Act to include noise in the street in order to give local authorities powers to put a stop to those kinds of noise.
There are, of course, many kinds of noise in the street. No Bill could hope to catch all street noise, nor would it he right to try to do so. The Bill, therefore, deals specifically with noise emitted from, or caused by, vehicles, machinery or equipment. That will catch all the noises that I have mentioned, and in particular will include car alarms. There are commonsense exemptions—for example, noise caused by traffic, by the Armed Forces, and at demonstrations of a political or campaigning nature.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an illustration of how the Bill's street noise provisions would work. Let us say that a car alarm has been sounding for some time in a residential street. The Bill gives environmental health officers (EHOs) a new power to affix an abatement notice onto the vehicle, machinery or equipment rather than having to serve it on the person responsible. That is a most sensible provision which will serve the dual purpose of allowing local authorities to proceed to take action where it proves impossible to trace the person responsible and of
190
alerting that person, should he return in the meantime, that his alarm is causing a nuisance arid that the local authority is taking steps to trace him.
The environmental health officer will then be obliged to attempt to serve a copy of the notice on the person responsible if that person can be found within one hour. In order to find that person, I understand that EHOs should be able to seek the help of the police in obtaining information on the ownership of the vehicle. Where, however, the person responsible cannot be found within an hour, the Bill provides new powers for EHOs to take a variety of actions. If they need to enter vehicles, EHOs will be under a clear duty to cause as little damage as possible. They will no doubt, therefore, call upon the services of a locksmith and an alarm specialist. It will, of course, be a matter of judgment as to whether the noise is so great, and has been persisting for so long, as to warrant the use of force.
Where an EHO has taken action to de-activate a vehicle alarm, the Bill will require him to re-secure the vehicle. If that is not practicable, he will have to have the vehicle towed away to a safe place or to immobilise it. The EHO must inform the police both before any action is taken and afterwards if the vehicle has been towed away.
Those then are the main provisions for dealing with noise in the street. I appreciate that that is a very complex part of the Bill because of all the amending of the environmental Act which it seeks to accomplish. But I can assure the House that the Bill achieves the dual objective of making noise in the street a statutory nuisance while building upon and upholding the well-tested principles and procedures of statutory nuisance.
The Bill strikes a balance between respecting the rights of the person responsible for the vehicle, machinery or equipment and the right of residents to expect action to be taken to abate a nuisance, particularly at night. That balance of rights is most important. It would not be right for EHOs to have the power to break into vehicles immediately without making any effort to trace the owner; but nor is it right that an entire neighbourhood should be kept awake at night by a faulty car alarm.
I turn now to the Bill's other provisions. Loudspeakers in the street can be a great source of noise and annoyance. They are currently controlled by Section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA), but there is room for improvement. Loudspeakers can currently be used in the street (although not for advertising purposes) between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. Clause 7 of the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to amend that time band, although not in such a way as to allow the operation of any loudspeaker outside the existing time band. I understand that at present the Government have no plans to amend the time band, but the power could prove very useful should Parliament feel the need for it at some stage in the future.
Clause 8 of the Bill gives local authorities the power to adopt provisions enabling them to grant consents, where appropriate, to those who wish to operate loudspeakers in the street outside the national time

191
band. Local authorities which adopt the provisions will not, however, be able to grant consents to the use of loudspeakers in connection with any election, or for advertising purposes. They will continue to be controlled under existing legislation.
I stress that only those local authorities that wish to do so need adopt the provisions. I envisage that they will be most useful in situations like charity events, or traditional festivals, where it is currently against the law to allow any loudspeaker to be operated in a street after 9 p.m.
The third element of the Bill deals with audible intruder alarms. We are all familiar with the deafening nuisance of intruder alarms which invariably seem to go off in the early hours of the morning, mine especially. These "false alarms" have become so commonplace as to make alarm systems far less effective for their proper purpose. Alarms do, of course, have an important security role. I am, however, anxious that something should be done to reduce the noise nuisance alarms can cause when they sound for no apparent reason. If this nuisance could be reduced, I am sure that the credibility of alarm systems in general could be improved.
London boroughs have been able, since 1991, to adopt provisions enabling them to require owners of alarms to fit cut-off devices and to supply the names of key-holders to the police. This Bill allows local authorities outside London to adopt similar provisions. Where local authorities adopt those provisions, this should reduce considerably the number of times that alarms sound for hours or even days at a time. Where, despite the fact that a local authority has adopted the provisions, an alarm continues to cause a nuisance, the authority will have special powers of entry into the premises. Before entering any premises, environmental health officers will need to obtain a warrant from a Justice of the Peace. Before a JP can issue a warrant, he must be satisfied not only that the alarm has been ringing for over an hour and is giving reasonable cause for annoyance to people living or working nearby, but also that the EHO has attempted, without success, to contact the registered key-holders. Even with a warrant EHOs will only be able to enter premises if they are accompanied by a police constable.
A power of entry into premises may seem controversial, although such powers already exist in the Environmental Protection Act. In the context of this Bill, it is important to appreciate that because of the chain of events that leads to the necessity for a forced entry, the number of times forced entry is required are going to be few and far between. Moreover, the Bill expressly requires the EHO not to cause more danger or disturbance than is necessary; and to leave the premises as well secured as he found them.
There are, therefore, as many safeguards in this Bill as the owner of property can reasonably expect given that his or her absence, and the noise of the alarm, may be keeping many scores of people awake in the small hours. The Bill contains a procedure of appointed days to ensure that once a local authority
192
has adopted the provisions, everyone has sufficient time to comply with the requirements. This is important for home-owners and businesses alike.
I believe, then, that the Bill strikes an excellent balance between the right of owners to protect their property and the right of neighbours to enjoy peace and quiet in their homes. I believe, too, that it will enhance the security role of alarms by ensuring that the number of false alarms is reduced as far as possible.
The fourth element of the Bill is a small but important provision concerned directly with statutory nuisance law as enshrined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Clause 10 in effect re-instates a power which local authorities used to have under the Public Health Act 1936. It allows them to recover costs incurred in abating a statutory nuisance by putting a charge on the premises where it is the owner of the premises who is, or was, responsible for the nuisance. In the past it has sometimes proved difficult for local authorities to trace the owners of premises in order to recover their costs after they have taken abatement action.
The Bill therefore provides local authorities with another, more certain way of effectively recovering their costs. The charge on the premises remains in force until all the costs, together with interest, are recovered. In this respect, it is completely in accord with the "polluter pays" principle, and I feel sure that local authorities will welcome it. This is a quiet little Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Shrewsbury.)
7.44 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on his clear exposition of the Bill and its contents. He spoke with his customary thoroughness. I shall not go into the details that the noble Earl mentioned but I wish to make a few observations about this Bill and about noise in general. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Meston will cover some of the more detailed parts of the Bill which have been mentioned by the noble Earl.
These days there can be few people, no matter what their age or standard of living, who have not at some time or another been extremely irritated, if not greatly disturbed, by noise. In urban areas of Britain various sorts of noise intrude upon the lives of people, particularly the old and the sick. It may be a question of an overhead aeroplane making too much noise or the noise coming from a drill in the street or from a car alarm going off. The latter matter is dealt with in this Bill. The cumulative effect of such noise on residents in its near vicinity can often be unbearable. This effect can turn distress into illness and in extreme circumstances it can lead to tragedy.
The kind of noise which creates distress, whether it is continuous or intermittent noise, can be caused either incidentally or deliberately. This Bill, although limited to noise arising in the street, deals in a way with both kinds of noise. Noisy road repairing equipment, aircraft noise and noise from inefficient

193
burglar alarms is noise that we can safely consider arises from no deliberate intention to cause discomfort or distress.
However, noise from illegal car or motor cycle exhaust systems can be caused deliberately or may result from negligence on the part of the owner, or from a failure to repair old and defective parts. Sometimes a quite appalling volume of noise comes from cars which have large and expensive tape and disc players fitted. That noise can make the walls of a house shake and vibrate to an extent that is unmatched even by the passage of heavy articulated lorries. I realise that we are not dealing with that particular problem here, although I would be interested to hear any remarks that noble Lords may wish to make on that source of noise. It is usually caused deliberately and with the intention of drawing attention to the person who causes it for whatever reason. This behaviour is, of course, offensive in the strict meaning of the word and needs to be dealt with as much as any loutish behaviour which occurs on the street or pavement.
The Bill is simple and reasonable and I think it is overdue. I welcome it unreservedly, as it is a move in the right direction as regards attacking the whole problem of noise. I hope sincerely that other legislation will follow to address some of the wider problems which have been considered by the noise review working party. Excessive and unnecessary disturbance of this kind can be as damaging as many other kinds of pollution. It is right to refer to this kind of disturbance as pollution.
Your Lordships will be surprised, and probably even disappointed, if I do not mention motor cycle noise. As I have had new silencers fitted to my machine, I speak about this matter with a clear conscience, although I believe I am right in saying that one of the noble Lords sitting on the Front Bench opposite has heard the rich, throaty tones of my old silencer as he ponders his departmental briefs in his office. But, seriously, loud noise from vehicle exhausts, whether from cars or motor cycles, is quite unnecessary and of course it is illegal.
I can say without fear of contradiction that it is relatively rare nowadays for people to be disturbed by motor cycles but when they are the noise can be extremely offensive. That noise occurs because people make a deliberate attempt to tamper with exhaust systems, either by drilling holes in them or by fitting systems which are illegal to use. I stress the word "use" because it is not yet illegal to sell the kind of race systems which are widely advertised and which create a terrible noise and are illegal to use. This situation arises because the Government have not yet seen fit to implement the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987. That is an excellent piece of legislation that was widely welcomed in both Houses. It was much needed. I have already asked the Department of Transport, through the Minister in this House, why that delay has been allowed. No convincing answer has been given as to why six years have elapsed before putting that legislation into effect—if it is to be put into effect. I fancy that the reason is departmental inertia and nothing more. However, the Government ought to do
194
something about it, and quickly. It is absurd for people to be using illegally in the street systems which are sold and advertised regularly by suppliers.
As was said so eloquently by the noble Earl, a great deal of the responsibility for noise abatement action necessarily involves local authorities in some, if not a good deal, of expense. It is never a good time for local authorities to have to consider further expense, but I am sure that public opinion is such that the actions against noise defined in this Bill will be welcomed by the majority of the electorate. I trust that its provisions will be implemented without delay.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury on the lucid way in which he introduced the Bill to your Lordships' House this evening. I shall try not to make too much noise, but I cannot guarantee not to be a nuisance to my noble friend.
This is a very welcome measure, but I do not believe that it goes far enough, as the noble Viscount said. It does nothing to address the question of enforcement of emission standards and prevention of noise nuisance from moving vehicles. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, covered that point, I shall not dwell on it. However, one must be grateful for small crumbs when they are offered.
My noble friend is the first person in either House to explain the purpose of the Bill and how it will affect the public at large. The Second Reading in another place was formal; the Committee stage lasted 52 minutes, and during that stage no fewer than 38 amendments were introduced—which suggests that the original drafting was questionable; the Third Reading on 4th May lasted 18 minutes, when one more amendment was tabled. In all, the Bill was considered for one hour and ten minutes, with 39 amendments. I have to ask my noble friend: have you got it right and will it work?
Not so long ago I was told by Westminster City Council that all alarms must be fitted with a 20 minute cut-out device, otherwise a fine of up to £5,000 would be imposed. I was also told that that covered private dwellings, shops and offices, as well as car alarms, as my noble friend said in his introduction. I take it that the Bill will enable other local authorities to take similar action. I hope that they will do so with great haste since I, like others and as my noble friend mentioned, have suffered when a bell goes off and the keyholder cannot be found so there is no way of stopping the noise. That keeps everyone up all night as well as making one irritable.
My second question to my noble friend is this. What is the situation if an authorised person gains entry to premises with a warrant and a police officer, turns off the alarm but cannot reset it, leaves the premises securely locked but in an hour or less the premises are burgled and valuables stolen? Who is responsible?
In the same context in relation to Schedule 3, how long will it take from an alarm going off, if the officer cannot gain entry and so must leave a notice, has to

195
apply for a warrant and then has to find a police officer before using reasonable force to gain entry? That could take some time: perhaps 24 hours or more.
My third and last question to my noble friend concerns noise in rural areas. Does the Bill cover excess noise such as church bell-ringing practice? What about lawnmowers? Do we all have to have a meter to determine the noise level of a mower? Some can be very noisy, as my noble friend Lord Oxfuird can testify.
As I said at the outset, I welcome the Bill. I congratulate my noble friend and wish the Bill a speedy passage. I hope that local authorities will enact it as soon as possible. It does not go far enough, but I hope that it may be the forerunner of a further Bill to deal with other noise nuisance.
7.54 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, the House must be grateful to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury for introducing the Bill and giving us the chance to support it. I must admit that as I entered the Chamber this evening a noble Baroness suggested to me that all those who are to speak in the debate suffer from one form of deafness or another.
Noise is not a subject on which we can all agree. For me some external noise can be a true delight. My noble friend Lord Brougham mentioned the sound of church bells. I think particularly of my own village, St. Mary Bourne, on a Sunday. The joy of beautiful music can also cause comment. E.M. Forster wrote in 1910:
"It will be generally admitted that Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is the most sublime noise that has ever penetrated into the ear of man".
More controversially, and in my view rather cheekily, the New York Herald Tribune wrote on 9th March 1961:
"The English may not like music, but they absolutely love the noise it makes".
I shall leave the last, and probably the most appropriate quotation, to His late Majesty, King Edward VII. His various biographers differ on the piece of music to which he was referring but agree that one evening towards the end of his reign, at Covent Garden His Majesty was overheard on turning to his secretary, Sir Frederick Ponsonby, to exclaim:
"Good Lord, Fritz, that's the fourth time we've been aroused by this infernal noise".
Enough of quotations. We have before us a Bill which aims to improve the lives of the whole community by tightening up the regulations on excessive noise and nuisances, mainly those in the street. The vast majority of the wording of the Bill seems clear and unambiguous, but I would like to pose a couple of questions to my noble friend, mainly for clarification.
I shall deal first with the excessive noise from malfunctioning burglar alarms. There is nothing that concentrates the mind more than a series of burglaries in a local area. Prior to such dramas in my own village, alarms which had been set off inadvertently were allowed to run on, to the annoyance of all. But today, following a recent spate of burglaries, people react positively. They call out the police and enlist the
196
support of the able-bodied in the population to investigate. Only last week my wife returned home to find an assembled crowd, headed by a policeman, after our own burglar alarm had gone off.
I should like to pose a question to my noble friend. What happens in the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Brougham if the environmental health officer deactivates a burglar alarm and the house is burgled subsequently? What is the position regarding insurance? Have the Government had any dialogue with those responsible in the world of insurance? That is an important aspect.
Another point which worries me concerns music from motor car stereo systems. Is there currently any law preventing people from playing very loud music in their motor cars?
I assure my noble friend that I ask those questions from the most constructive of motives and not in any way to try to detract from the acknowledged virtues of this proposed piece of legislation. Surely the real point is this. Will the Bill change matters? Will it enrich our environment and make life more pleasant for the whole community? I believe that it will and therefore I support it.
8 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I join in expressing gratitude to the noble Earl for his introduction of the Bill. In principle, it is a valuable measure which we should support. However, it has to be said that the Bill is a further illustration of the piecemeal and ad hoc manner in which our environmental protection legislation develops. But at least it can be said that it does develop. Noise alone is covered by several Acts of Parliament dealing with noise in general—from aircraft, and from motorcycles to which my noble friend referred. In addition, there is a substantial body of secondary legislation and codes of practice such as those introduced in 1981 relating to intruder alarms and ice cream van chimes. Inevitably, there are also now European directives and initiatives. Indeed, I read that a Minister recently had said with some pride that he had addressed something called Euro-noise—which I assume is nothing to do with what we have been enduring for the past few weeks.
Evidence indicates that the objective expressed in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has not been achieved. That objective is integrated control of pollution generally. However, the Bill provides a measure of integration. Having said that, there is still an undesirable geographical fragmentation, not simply as between England and Scotland, to which some of the Bill applies, or as between England and Northern Ireland, to which none of the Bill applies, but as between London and elsewhere, and local authority and local authority.
I wish to concentrate for a moment on intruder alarms. Clause 9 and Schedule 3 deal with intruder alarms, but the provisions do not relate to London. One can discover with some difficulty that alarms in London are covered by Section 23 of the London local authorities legislation of 1991. I question why we have to have separate provision for London, making the

197
law inaccessible even for lawyers. I hope that there might be a more serious attempt to integrate and consolidate the law.
Clause 9 and Schedule 3 are welcome so far as they go. I am clearly not alone in having been afflicted by burglar alarms. I understand that about 98 per cent. of burglar alarms which go off are indeed false alarms. They go off at night, having been set by one's neighbours who have gone away and whose nominated keyholders live some distance away. In a built-up area noise reverberates, usually just after a conscientious father has got a baby off to sleep. However, that said, why are the provisions in Clause 9 permissive only? In other words, Clause 9 provides no more than that a local authority may resolve to apply Schedule 3 to its area. Why is it necessary to make it simply permissive? What incentive will there be for local authorities to adopt the provisions of Schedule 3? There appear to be few financial incentives if one reads the financial effects of the Bill set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
Likewise, I question why there are limitations within Schedule 3 which ensure that the provisions of that schedule apply only to newly installed alarms or to new occupiers arriving after the appointed day. The problem of alarms going off when they are not meant to is probably greatest with the more elderly alarms which are poorly maintained and to which the Bill would not apply unless and until there is a change of occupier. Presumably in that situation, the old law, such as it is, will apply.
There is one further noticeable difference between the Bill and other London legislation. In the London legislation there is a specific requirement for alarms to have a 20-minute cut-off device. That is conspicuous by its absence on the face of the Bill which simply refers to prescribed requirements. Why is there no 20-minute cut-off device stipulated in the Bill? What requirements are likely to be prescribed? When can we expect the Secretary of State to prescribe them?
As has been explained so clearly by the noble Earl, in the same context there are abatement remedies. Inevitably they must be cumbersome because there has to be a balance between respect for private property and the peace of the neighbourhood. But it is rather depressing to read in the Bill that the right of entry to premises does not arise until the alarm has been ringing for at least an hour. I can well understand that that will simply add to the mythology that robust self help is permissible after a stipulated period. Certainly in London it is widely believed that one can take an axe to an offending alarm after about 20 minutes. Sadly, that is not true.
I have a depressing feeling that in practice much of the Bill, in particular in relation to burglar alarms, will be ineffective. The nuisance will be greatest at night when local authority officers cannot reasonably be expected to be around. I cannot help feeling that the measure will prove little more effective than by-laws against fouling by dogs.
While the Bill passes through your Lordships' House, I hope that some thought can be given to ways in which it could be made more effective to deal with
198
those who are selfish enough to have defective alarms creating the misery of noise nuisance and also wasting a great deal of police time. I would hope to see some indication of more positive incentives. The local authorities clearly will not be encouraged to take up the enabling provisions of the Bill without resources. I question how many of the local authorities within London already governed by the existing legislation have implemented the provisions of the London legislation.
I should like to see some further encouragement given to insurers to give discounts for those who have properly maintained alarms, and encouragement to landlords to stipulate within leases for the proper maintenance of alarms. That is all in the hope that prevention is better than the remedies provided by the Bill.
Some noble Lords have already referred to the separate problem of vehicle alarms. I am glad to see that the Bill covers vehicle alarms. Car alarms can be just as annoying when they go off at night. I express some sympathy with the views that have been indicated. Anxiety has been expressed about how the measures in the Bill will work in practice. Likewise, I am sure that I am not alone in having received briefing material suggesting that the Bill could be used to gain some indication from the Government: as to their policy with regard to improved roadside testing. That is clearly a subject to which we may have to return in Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brougham, observed, the Bill received fairly scant attention in another place. It was a little under an hour in Committee. Most of the amendments were of a technical nature or otherwise concerned with the use of loudspeakers by politicians. I am glad to say that that is not a concern which is paramount in your Lordships' House. I hope therefore that we shall take a little time on the Bill. I do not suppose that we shall ever see my particular panacea of the return of bells to fire engines and whistles on trains. Nevertheless, I hope that some strengthening of the Bill will be permissible before it leaves your Lordships' House.
8.10 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, we on this side of the House, like other noble Lords who have spoken, welcome this modest Bill which will go a small way towards enhancing the quality of life in our cities by creating to some extent a more peaceful environment. On the whole the provisions for enforcement seem reasonably sensible and attempt to achieve a careful balance between the rights and duties of neighbours and other people who live on the same street. We all know how disturbing street noise can be. The Bill provides for some control of street noise caused by car alarms, machine equipment, loudspeakers and intruder alarms which can now, under the Bill, be dealt with as statutory nuisances.
We also welcome the recognition by the Government that local authorities investigating or attempting to enforce the legislation will be put to additional costs. Some of the administrative costs may be recoverable through fees for licensing the use of

199
loudspeakers, but this will clearly not go the whole way to covering the cost of possibly having additional enforcement officers. I hope that this additional burden on local authority resources will be recognised by the provision of additional money—real money—to accompany the legislation when it is enacted and not just by a recognition that at least £500,000 extra will be placed on local authorities.
As far as it goes the legislation is welcome, but as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has said, it is unambitious in its scope. There are other noises which people find very disturbing. As has already been mentioned, there are road traffic noises on streets which are specifically exempted from the Bill. However, those can create particularly grievous forms of disturbance. For example, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who is clearly an expert on motor bikes, mentioned, motor bikes which have had their baffles drilled or removed from their silencers can produce extremely painful noise levels, especially when they appear to be quite deliberately and aggressively accelerating away from one. That creates all the more aggravating a nuisance because the act appears to be deliberate. I therefore heartily endorse the comments of the noble Viscount and ask the Minister when he proposes to enact the relevant legislation.
Heavy lorries that regularly park in residential streets and start up in the early hours can also be a considerable nuisance to people who are trying to sleep. I wonder whether the Government have any plans for restricting such lorries during the night hours. There are other noises that people find very disturbing. I, too, have received briefing material on a variety of different noises that disturb people, particularly at night. Those of us who live in West London under the flight path out of Heathrow are very concerned about proposals to relax to some extent the regulations about night flying in respect of aeroplanes which are allegedly quieter than other aeroplanes. But at night, when you do not even have the background rumble of traffic, any aircraft noise is extremely intrusive and can wake people even from sound sleep. I would urge the Government not to relax the current restrictions on night flying.
I have also had briefing from residents living near Paddington railway station who have been very concerned by the night work on the railway lines for some considerable months. The Minister, who is nodding his head, has no doubt also received letters and representations about the continuous working throughout the night which has disturbed people's sleep. Therefore, although welcoming this modest Bill which will help to some extent to control street noise, I would hope that the Government might have some more ambitious plans in the coming Session. Rumour has it that there will be no environmental legislation during the next Session. I would ask the Minister whether, perhaps beyond the next Session, there might be some remote glimmer of hope for some further control on the nuisance of noise which so disturbs us in our large cities.
8.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I have thoroughly enjoyed listening to this Second Reading debate on the Bill brought forward by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I am very grateful to him for the way in which he introduced the Bill. I am grateful, too, for the way in which other Members of the House spoke, generally speaking, in favour of the Bill. I join my noble friend in congratulating my honourable friend Andrew Hunter who introduced the Bill as a Private Member's Bill in another place.
I was particularly attracted to what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, said on motorcycles and to his responsible attitude towards their use. He expressed the desire that people should keep their exhausts in correct order. The noble Viscount and indeed my noble friend Lord Oxfuird asked an important question on the law preventing people from playing very loud music in their cars. I can tell the House that, although the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 contain no specific reference to car stereos, Regulation 97 makes it an offence to use a vehicle on a road in such a manner as to cause any excessive noise which could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care on the part of the driver. I understand that Essex police have been serving fixed penalty notices on those who operate car stereos so as to create excessive noise. The penalty is currently £20 and the driver's licence is not endorsed. In addition, the Control of Pollution Act 1974 makes it an offence to operate a loudspeaker in a car for certain purposes between the hours of 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. if the loudspeaker gives reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity.
The noble Viscount also asked a question on motorcycle exhausts. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the requirements of EC Directive 89/235 and the latest British Standard, both dealing with replacement exhaust systems. Under our Community obligations these two provisions, appearing soon after the 1987 Act, introduced unavoidable delays in completing the regulations. In addition, the requirements do not easily fit into the corpus of British road traffic law. Consequently, drafting has been a long and involved process. The amendment to the 1986 regulations is to all intents and purposes now complete. We propose to press ahead with the regulations to be made under the 1987 Act.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird started his speech with various quotations, which was interesting. My noble friend went on to ask a question, as did my noble friend Lord Brougham, on what would happen if a house was burgled. What I can say on this subject is that the Government consulted the insurance industry on its own proposals in June 1992. The industry was broadly supportive of the proposals that have now been introduced in the Bill. We will of course consult the industry again before this part of the Bill comes into force to make sure that the industry and Parliament are in agreement.
Turning to the Bill, I am sure that all those who spoke and indeed the whole House will regard the Bill

201
as extremely good news to all those who have suffered from the problems that are caused by noise in the street and noise from burglar alarms. My noble friend mentioned the many kinds of noise nuisance in the street that were highlighted by the Noise Review Working Party in 1990. These include vehicle alarms, noisy generators and noisy DIY car repairs. I am particularly delighted that the Bill addresses the problems caused by vehicle alarms, because I know that they can cause considerable annoyance to all those unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity. We should also recognise the care that has been taken in the Bill to balance the rights of owners of vehicles left unattended in the street against the reasonable expectations of those living and working in the vicinity that a noise nuisance should be stopped as quickly as possible.
Modern sound equipment is capable of creating a deafening and ear-damaging effect. I am therefore delighted that the Bill also addresses the question of loudspeakers in the street. I think that the provisions introduced by my noble friend strike just the right balance between flexibility and ensuring greater control.
The Control of Pollution Act 1974 has proved to be a sound piece of legislation for dealing with loudspeakers in the street. This Bill seeks to improve it further by providing the order-making power for the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce a more restrictive control over the time that loudspeakers may be used in the street for non-advertising purposes. But the Bill also provides flexibility at the local level by giving authorities the opportunity to adopt powers to consent to the playing of loudspeakers outside the times permitted under the 1974 Act if they wish to do so. This seems to me to be a thoroughly sensible and pragmatic proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked why the provision was adopted. It depends on how large a problem exists in each local authority. It would not make sense for a local authority to have these powers if the loudspeakers were not necessarily a problem in their area.
My noble friend and other noble Lords mentioned the considerable problem that can be caused by burglar alarms that misfire in the small hours. Quite apart from the aggravation their misfiring creates, it also defeats their purpose. It is therefore in the interests of the owners of premises, the manufacturers and installers of alarms and residents at large that all is done that can be done to ensure that intruder alarms disturb people only when a crime is being committed. As with the loudspeaker proposals, the powers in the Bill relating to burglar alarms will also be subject to adoption procedures; and that, I am sure, is a sensible way of ensuring that only those authorities who feel that they can usefully use these powers need apply them.
Clause 10 of the Bill will, I am sure, be welcomed by local authorities. It will provide them with a more certain way of recovering the expenses that they have incurred in the course of their duty to abate statutory nuisances. I thoroughly welcome this proposal.
202
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, for broadly welcoming the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Meston, felt that the Bill did not go far enough. But we are dealing in the realms of the possible. I believe that a small step taken at this stage will have larger benefits in the future. The noble Baroness asked what effect it would have on local authority expenditure and whether the Government would be making funds available after the introduction of this Act. Of course it is important to recognise the financial background against which local authorities can commit resources to services such as environmental health. It is for each authority to determine its own priorities in the light of its statutory responsibility and its own interpretation of local needs and circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Brougham said that in another place there were a number of amendments. He asked whether we have got it right now. I understand that in another place nearly all the amendments were of a minor nature and they tidied up the Bill. My officials have advised me that the Bill is now in a good state and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury will be able to confirm that.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, complained that perhaps in another place it was not given quite enough attention. It is of course entirely for the other place to decide how it conducts its business, but I am glad that so many noble Lords have felt able to speak this evening. On that note, I commend the Bill to the House. I can assure noble Lords that it will receive full government support in its implementation.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this excellent subject. Noise is a very difficult arid highly complex problem. It affects all of us at one stage or another. However, my task has been made an enormous amount more simple tonight because I had felt that I had to answer all the questions which my noble friend on the Front Bench has just replied to. He has covered all the points which noble Lords have mentioned and which were addressed specifically to me on this Bill. I thank all noble Lords for taking part. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.24 to 8.30 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Revision of Treaty: reporting proposals
(". Whenever proposals are made by any Member State or by any institution of the Community or of the Union for revision of any of the policies or forms of co-operation introduced by the Treaty on European Union, the Secretary of State shall

(a) lay before Parliament a report setting out the nature of the proposals and their potential effect on the interests and obligations of the United Kingdom; and

(b) ensure that the United Kingdom's conduct in the Community and in the Union in relation to such proposals is in accordance with Parliament's opinion of them, as manifested in the form of Resolution, Motion, enactment or otherwise.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss with this amendment, Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. There is no doubt about the meaning of these amendments. There may have been some doubt about the meaning of some amendments during Committee stage but these amendments state quite clearly what they seek to achieve. Perhaps I may go briefly through them.
Amendment No. 32 seeks to allow Parliament to have an influence on the conduct of any revisions of the treaty or policies or the form of co-operation introduced by this treaty. Amendment No. 33 seeks to involve Parliament directly in revisions of treaties by making any proposed revision subject to its consent before any review. Amendment No. 34 seeks to limit the term of the Act to 1996, when there is to be an inter-governmental conference. The objective is to examine what has happened between the ratification of the Treaty on European Union (and what has been said during these debates) and what in fact is happening in 1996. That gives us a chance to repeal the Act if it is not doing what it was thought it should do and ensure that it is doing what was intended.
I seek to have Parliament involved at every stage. The treaties relating to the European Community are different from other treaties. They are different in that they constitute a series of "mini" written constitutions, designed to lead eventually to complete economic and political union. So they are different from other treaties which seek to do something quite specific.
This is a series of treaties which has as its ultimate objective complete political and economic union. So it is necessary to treat them differently. They embrace every facet of government, including foreign policy and defence. As we have heard in our debates, the issues are indeed complicated. They are varied and the interpretations put on them can be quite different. Therefore it is all the more important that everything should be clear, especially since a European supreme court will make decisions on the basis of what is written into the treaties. It is supremely important that Parliament should know exactly what is in the treaties, has been involved with the content of the treaties, can have a say about what is in them and should eventually decide what should be in the treaties in absolute detail.
We have seen all too vividly how government can be at odds with Parliament and how both the Government and the Opposition can be split on these issues. It is desirable that Parliament should be involved at every stage, both supervising the negotiations of treaties and finally agreeing the terms of treaties before they are finally concluded by
204
Ministers with other member states. Only in that way can we obtain the true acquiescence of Parliament and, through Parliament, the acquiescence and involvement of ordinary people, who are, of course, represented in another place.
Such a system would be a unifying experience for Parliament and the people. I suggest that it would restore confidence that Parliament is more than a rubber stamp. People would feel that their representatives had a genuine say in what was happening. If people were involved at every stage and had the final say on the details of the treaties, they would feel that they had an influence on what was done in their name. They would have confidence that they were not being bulldozed into a system which they did not want by a bureaucracy which was completely out of touch with their aspirations and was careless, even contemptuous, of their fears.
To involve Parliament in all those matters and to do so at every stage is not to try to put the Government into a straitjacket. It is to try to form a new partnership between government and Parliament, so that it is not simply a matter of the Government saying, "We have made this treaty. If you don't agree with us on the treaty, we shall look bad in the eyes of the international community and lose face. You really can't do that to us". Arising from that is the absurd situation of Members on both sides being whipped into the Lobbies, very reluctantly indeed in many cases. These amendments show the way to a new and genuine partnership between the Government and Parliament and Parliament and the people.
Amendment No. 35 seeks to obtain from Her Majesty's Government for Parliament's consideration a White Paper concerning the process for making further revisions to the Treaty on European Union, the use of prerogative powers and the extent to which Parliament may in future be directly involved in discussing and approving individual articles in future treaties (I suppose that that is an alternative to the other provisions but it comes together with them). It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is not in the Chamber. We are suggesting something similar to what he has proposed. I expect that he has been very bored and very angry, as have many other noble Lords, because we have had to deal with the Bill and this treaty in a particular way, since that is the absurd manner in which we deal with such matters.
Amendment No. 35 seeks to persuade the Government to think of what the future process should be in regard to Parliament's involvement. Bearing in mind the problems that they and the Opposition have had during the passage of the Bill to ratify the treaty, I should have thought that the Government would want to discuss a new way of doing things. Then, when we have future treaties—I suppose we shall have them, which will be a pity—we can discuss them in a way which everybody understands and in which everybody is able to participate.
I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to that amendment. They may have some difficulty with the others; I appreciate that. But we are trying to plot a new and future course where

205
Parliament becomes more rather than less important. We are trying to chart a course where, far from losing sovereignty, Parliament gains more sovereignty. I should have thought that that was something we would all want, including the Government.
The amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as my name is down to Amendment No. 35, which is part of this group, perhaps I should state my position.
I do not altogether share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in regard to the likely reaction of Her Majesty's Ministers. It does not seem to me that the evidence suggests that they are prepared to take into account the genuine feelings of Parliament—I do not mean the people who are whipped through the Lobbies—and still less, as we shall hear tomorrow, the genuine concerns of the population of these islands.
For some time there has been a commitment on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the belief that Britain's problems are incapable of solution if Britain is left to govern herself and that the only hope for this country is continuous integration in a supranational framework. That is clearly exploitable by other countries which have a clear idea of where they would like to go from the political, economic and social points of view. They know that they can play upon the determination of Her Majesty's Government to he "at the heart of Europe", to coin a cliché.
It is interesting, and historians will regard it as extraordinary, that we should come round to that essentially defeatist position when so much is going for this country in terms of its capacities and material resources. In successive conferences which have revised the Treaty of Rome, a bargaining situation has emerged in which carrots are held out and eagerly nibbled by our negotiators but which, in the end, proved to be only carrots, and the inexorable course towards total integration proceeds. Though naturally one would like to see Parliament associated in the early stages and receiving warnings of what is afoot, I doubt that will happen.
We have been talking of 1996—the year which the treaty prescribes for the next conference. But, as I said al an earlier stage, we have no guarantee that it will be 1996; it could be sooner. For instance, it is obvious that, since Belgium is in an internal mess and badly needs an international triumph, it would like to mark its presidency with a further move towards integration. At one point the Belgian Prime Minister suggested that there might usefully be a conference this coming autumn. That now does not look likely but we must expect a series of forays of that kind. Because of our determination to be involved in the process, we will see what is and what will go on happening; that is to say, the use of whatever article in any of the three treaties comes to hand to progressively impose upon our economy and our environment the desires of the nucleus striving in Brussels and some of the capitals for further integration.
Ministers say. "We fought against the 40-hour week directive; we fought against other directives. But
206
it is necessary for us not to break with our great European partners, so in the end we gave way". What is striking about the process, which came out in our lengthy and, I fear, elongated debates on the Bill, is that the Government are doing all that while themselves holding no brief for most of what the Community is doing.
Yesterday we heard that there was nothing to be said. Indeed, Ministers said nothing in favour of the common agricultural policy. They all say that it is awful, dreadful, costly, damaging to us and to the developing countries. But they then add, "But we are only one and can do nothing about it unless we repudiate the Treaty of Rome". I dare say that that would be a striking step. But as long as one says that, one puts up with it.
It is equally the case—there has been a great deal of press comment upon it—with the dmectives on the environment. We may have to charge enormous sums of money to those who drink water—mistakenly, but they drink it—because of the totally absurd demands being made under directives of the European Community, which have no relation to the health of our people. They are not supported by statistics or health arguments. In other words, they are matters wholly within our own grasp. We used to run the support of our agriculture and run it rather well. We are perfectly capable of deciding what are the proper levels of purity of water and other environmental questions.
Any country which has a well-established government, with ministers, civil servants and Parliament, could do this for themselves. But because we are besotted with this idea that we must be "in" with the Europeans we abandon our own capacity for dealing with our own problems. That is why I think that there is a great deal to be said, although I am not optimistic about it, and we have to see that the public is awakened to what is happening. As we are a parliamentary country, associating Parliament with any further accretion of powers to the centre, or any further negotiations for the accretion of powers to the centre, must be a sensible course. Therefore I support this group of amendments.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we always listen to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with a great deal of interest because he always puts his case so fluently and in a way that is stimulating, even when one does not agree with him. However, it seems to me that when he was complaining that the mood of Britain was defeatist in its approach to Europe, he himself was immensely defeatist in the whole tenor of what he was saying. The picture he presented was of a rather pusillanimous or a rather weak British Government that was incapable of looking after any British interest in Brussels and was a push-over for anything that other members of the Community do. I am no uncritical admirer of Her Majesty's Government but, even to someone coming from these Benches, I think that was a grossly unfair caricature of the reality. The reality goes a great deal deeper than the noble Lord's analysis.
The fact is that this country used to be a great imperial power, with a Commonwealth with which it

207
was very closely associated, and it had an international role of a special character. The world changed greatly in the post-war period and the United Kingdom had to decide how to adapt itself to those changes in the world situation. The view was taken by successive British governments and by the majority of the British political community over many years that the best way of adapting to these new circumstances, when we could no longer be a substantial world power with an international world-wide base through the Empire and Commonwealth, was to become part of a European community.
It was a very positive decision. It is of course possible to argue about it but it was a very positive decision; and I think that has been the position of successive governments. That is the underlying reality that we are dealing with here. For my part, I regard the process from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Maastricht as a beneficial one for the peoples of Europe, including the peoples of the United Kingdom. Although we may be critical of the way the Government handle particular issues, I think that the underlying position of the British Government in relation to Europe is very different from the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. Of course it is possible to find areas of European Community life of which one is completely critical. It is possible to find areas of United Kingdom life of which we are very critical. The common agricultural policy is a sitting target for that kind of thing. I suspect that the issue of clean water is a rather more complicated issue than the common agricultural policy.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who has a very real feel for these issues of national power, standing and so on, that he seems to be, by picking on these particular issues, ignoring the fact that 90 per cent. of the entire British business community believes that the real interest of the British people, from the point of view of economic welfare, lies in being part of a European Community. That, I think, he totally overlooked.
The first of these amendments emphasises the importance of Government having adequate machinery for parliamentary consultation, as events develop within the European Community. In a general way, I think that we are all in sympathy with that particular purpose. For my part, although I have many complaints about the way that Her Majesty's Government have behaved in these matters—I totally disagree with the opt-out on the social chapter, for example—I do not think that Parliament can complain about the way the Government have sought to consult it throughout the whole process of the Maastricht affair. They held very full consultations before the Maastricht Treaty was finally signed and there was endorsement in Parliament after that.
If I have a criticism it is that instead of standing on our own feet in the matter we allowed our timetable to be determined by the views of the Danish people rather than by the views here in the United Kingdom. I do not think one can complain about the parliamentary consultation. The role that this House plays through its select committees in European affairs
208
is a very positive one. No doubt some things could be improved, but the underlying position is that the British interests for the future lie in a more integrated European community and in Britain being at the heart of that.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has just said. Turning in particular to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, of course it is desirable that Parliament should be involved and I very much endorse what my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has said about this. But surely it is quite inconceivable that this or any future government which follows it should fail to take into account the views of Parliament with respect to any proposals regarding the amendment of the treaty. No doubt the Minister will give us this assurance when she replies.
Let me give my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon this assurance. We from this Bench will hold the Government to their political obligation to consult Parliament at the time of renegotiation of the treaty. If I may say so, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said. The peoples' representatives have certainly had a very good say on the ratification of this treaty. Some would say that they have had almost too much of a say and too many hours of parliamentary time have been devoted to it. But I am sure that they will also have plenty to say when renegotiation takes place.
If I could turn for a moment to Amendment No. 34, it seems to me that this amendment, if accepted, would tie the Government to replacement of the Act by a particular date, which really makes no sense whatever. The treaty is actually concluded for an unlimited period, and the Act ratifying it should also be for an unlimited period. After the member states' governments have met in 1996 to consider those parts of the treaty for which revision is provided, there can be no doubt that the government of the day will bring forward to the British Parliament any proposals for legislation or legislative change if and when that is needed. Again, I give my noble friends who are concerned about this an assurance that this is a political obligation on the part of any government that is in power at that time that must be enforced.
Turning to Amendment No. 35, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has his name, I do not want to get into the issues of substance on European integration which I think he was raising, because it does not seem to me that they are terribly germane to this amendment—even the purity of water, much as I am also concerned about that—and nor do I think it would be right to get into tomorrow's debate on a referendum. We shall have many hours to discuss something that he also mentioned: the question of whether the people, rather than the peoples' representatives, should be consulted. I think that this is a question for tomorrow.
I have little objection to this amendment in principle, although the timescale of nine months is very short. I have not been convinced by the arguments put forward by the two noble Lords supporting the amendments that it is necessary to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Again, we in

209
Opposition would want to ensure that the Government fulfilled their political obligations in this respect. That does not need to be embodied in statute. I regret to say that the Labour Party cannot support these amendments. We consider them to be either unnecessary or damaging in the case of Amendment No. 34.
9 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, out of these four amendments, three of them, led by Amendment No. 32 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, seek to guarantee Parliament's role and involvement in any future treaty revision. I can give the assurance which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was seeking. There is already going to be a role for Parliament. There will be involvement for Parliament in any future treaty revision. The exceptional amendment to the four is Amendment No. 34 to which the noble Baroness also took, exception. I am not surprised that this amendment was tabled limiting the duration of the Act to 31st December 1996. I have to say "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for his magnanimity in allowing us three whole years' grace to sort out what is going on.
But it is not practicable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, the period should be unlimited. If there are elements in this treaty, as in any previous treaty—and as I outlined in answer to Amendment No. 31—which requires amendment, then it must be taken up at the next opportunity. With the Maastricht Treaty we have closed certain loopholes which we found to exist in previous treaties.
I now turn to the three main amendments, Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 35. Amendment No. 32 would require a report to Parliament whenever proposals are made for the revision of the Maastricht Treaty and that the United Kingdom follows a negotiating mandate approved by Parliament. Amendment No. 33 requires the Government to gain the prior approval of Parliament to any further treaty revision. Both these amendments reflect ones debated at Committee stage. They were Amendments Nos. 414 and 408.
No one will dispute the legitimate right of Parliament to influence legislation. But I believe that that is best ensured by following what is consistent UK practice on treaties; namely, that any domestic legislation is passed after signature but before ratification. The treaty itself contains a clear procedure for amendment. Currently Article 236 of the Treaty of Rome is replaced by Article N of the Maastricht Treaty which states:
"The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I shall not go down that path tonight. We shall have our full debate tomorrow. In the United Kingdom substantive amendments to the Community treaties will of course require an Act of Parliament as was the case with the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. Parliament will have every opportunity to have its say. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said,
210
with the Maastricht Treaty we did indeed seek the approval of Parliament for a negotiating mandate before my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary went to Maastricht. When they returned, the outcome of that negotiation was put to both Houses of Parliament. Therefore. it is not only possible but certain that the Government would seek a mandate from Parliament for the negotiating strategy and treaty negotiations, particularly if they are major. That is a decision for the government of the day. I see no way of proceeding in these matters of making—
Lord Morris: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend the Minister. Perhaps I may ask one point for clarification which is very important. Will Parliament have the opportunity of seeing in draft the terms of any treaty which is in the process of being negotiated?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. I know what my noble friend is asking. What one can fairly say is that Parliament, as in the case of the Maastricht negotiations, can certainly see in outline the detail of what it is intended to negotiate. That is exactly what was done in the period leading up to December 1991. On return the detail of the outcome of those negotiations was put to both Houses of Parliament.
Whether the exact words can be put to Parliament—certainly not in advance but after the negotiations—is perhaps asking too much only because it takes some time for the lawyers to make sure that there is a watertight expression of the intentions of the heads of government at their meeting. I remember well a debate I had with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He was asking me about changes in words. I explained to him that it was for clarification that words were changed. In the case that he cited, the words were very minor. I managed to satisfy him on that occasion. I am not seeking to provoke him now to any disagreement.
I understand what my noble friend Lord Morris asked. He asked whether the exact words would be put. I do not think that is practicable. It is not that the Government are unwilling. They are perfectly willing to make sure that all the tenets are set out as we did in the case of the Maastricht Treaty and which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Tebbit in the debate in another place in December 1991 and which I quoted in our debate on 17th February last.
The decision is always for the government of the day as to how they will proceed. There will be different circumstances from time to time and that is why I do not believe that we can enshrine in legislation Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Perhaps I may make perfectly clear our intention to consult and inform Parliament about Community activities. We already provide notification of proposed Community legislation and, of course, we take the views of Parliament into account when negotiating even minor directives and when voting in Council. Ministers are well aware of the need to justify their actions and new directives to Parliament. I can well remember during the three-and-a-half years when if was associated specifically with such directives the trouble that was taken to seek to inform and to get the

211
information through to those who were interested. I welcomed then, and I welcome now, any Member of this House or of another place who is interested, because it is much better to have an interested Parliament than to have an uninterested Parliament when one wishes to make what one hopes will be the right decision.
The matters of scrutiny which are covered in the amendments are really matters for the Procedure Committee and not, I believe, for legislation. The procedures to which the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, refer, would be laid down in statute and therefore made far less flexible. In fact, they would be made inflexible. I fear that if the noble Lord's amendments were to succeed, not very much time would go by before we would require further legislation to change them and to make them less inflexible.
I turn now to Amendment No. 35, which I shall call the favourite amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The amendment draws attention to the role of national parliaments. A declaration on this subject is attached to the Maastricht Treaty. That declaration notes the importance of encouraging greater involvement by national parliaments in the activities of the European Union. The declaration calls for increased exchanges of information between national parliaments and the European Parliament. It calls for national parliaments to be given the Commission's legislative proposals in good time for scrutiny, and for increased contacts between national parliaments and the European Parliament, in particular through the granting of appropriate reciprocal facilities and regular meetings between Members of the parliaments who are interested in the same issues.
The Birmingham European Council reaffirmed that national parliaments should be more closely involved in the Community's activities, and member states undertook to discuss the issue with their national parliaments. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary put a number of ideas to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the European Communities of your Lordships' House and to the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation of another place. In the Government's view, both the Maastricht and Birmingham declarations offer new areas of involvement for Parliament which we believe to be right. They also offer real opportunities to mesh the views of Parliament with Community business. But ultimately it will be up to Members of your Lordships' House and of the other place to decide whether or not the proposals that come forward for discussion should be accepted.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made a number of interesting comments but I, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, felt that he was being defeatist. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that some of the noble Lord's descriptions were grossly unfair. I certainly would not be defeatist. I have always said that many things need to be improved in the European Community, but we now have the basic co-operation that was so urgently
212
needed after 1945. That has been built up. We in the United Kingdom are intimately interconnected with our partners in the European Community for our economic well-being. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, for what he said.
My noble friend Lord Beloff made some comments about the Belgian presidency. Having lived in Belgium at one time and having a part-Belgian family, I often feel that I know better than most just how intractable and difficult the Belgians can be, but I hardly think that they will gain some great international triumph from their presidency. I think that my noble friend Lord Beloff knows full well that, whereas they may try to distract other members of the Community from time to time, there are certainly a good half-dozen members of the Community which are absolutely determined to get the future of our Community right, and particularly to concentrate on the economic rebuilding that is necessary within the Community. I do not think that any of us will allow ourselves to be knocked off course during the coming five-and-a-half months.
My noble friend also said that the British Government had given way over the 48-hour working directive. I must tell him that that really is not so. I know that my right honourable friend who is now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but who was previously the Secretary of State for Employment, worked exceedingly hard to make sure that we had a minimal directive—something which I know will not please the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Nevertheless, she succeeded in that. We all believe, and we still believe, that the wrong treaty basis has been used. That is why we are taking a minimal directive, as it now is —it is far less dangerous than it once was—to the European Court of Justice. I ask my noble friend Lord Beloff not to say that we gave way on something for which we fought exceptionally hard. We succeeded in the art of the possible.
I shall not go through all the rest of the things that my noble friend said about water purification. I gave that directive as an example in our previous debate. It is right that we should awaken the public to what is going on, but we should do it with facts. We should not base it on myths or stories. We should ensure that the communication is open, balanced and fair. I shall always stand by that approach.
We do not need the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I hope that he will think again. Should they be pressed, I would advise your Lordships to vote against them. I cannot see, with the outcome of the discussions, especially at Birmingham on greater openness and those which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee in this place and the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee in another place, that Parliament will be less informed than ever before. It is going to be much more informed, and we do not need the amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I thank all those who have taken part in it. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord

213
Beloff, was saying when he talked about defeatism. He was not talking about the defeatism of the British people. He was talking about the defeatism of the British establishment. It does not have confidence in the people of this country to manage their own affairs. It therefore believes that they have to be integrated with other people. As I said on Second Reading, the very same people believe that everyone else should have independence but that this country cannot manage other than by interdependence. I think that that is what the noble Lord was talking about, and I very much agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. He said that in his view the road from Rome to Maastricht had been beneficial. Our debates have shown the reverse, quite frankly. I, my noble friend Lord Bruce and noble Lords on the other side of the House have often challenged those who say that there have been beneficial effects from our entry into the EC to have a cost-benefit analysis. That has never been provided.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it would be interesting to have a cost-benefit analysis before us before we enter into any treaties.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone gave me the assurance that the Opposition would hold the Government to consultations with Parliament. That is not what I want. I am sorry, I do not want consultations with Parliament. I want Parliament to be supreme. That is what the amendments are all about. They are not about consultations. They are about supervision. They are about supervising government, which is Parliament's right, to ensure that Parliament is involved at every stage, even at the negotiation stage, and eventually, through the proper procedures, able to examine any treaties in detail and not through a five or six clause Bill. That is what it is all about. That is what the amendment is about.
The Minister said that there would of course be many more opportunities for Parliament to be involved in matters European. Good, good, good! I just wish that Parliament had never rid itself of the powers, which now means that it has to have some formal involvement in the discussion of the powers which it has handed over to others. Again, the Minister has it wrong. She says that the procedures are adequate. She had better ask her honourable friend Bill Cash and others whether the procedures are adequate. Another place did not think so. Members of another place had great difficulty, first, in tabling proper amendments, and then being allowed to vote on them when they had tabled them. That was what all the terrible fuss was about. The procedures simply are not good enough. We have shown in this House that those procedures are not good enough. I must say to the noble Baroness, whom I respect, like and admire, particularly for the way that she has handled this Bill, that we are about ensuring that Parliament can examine every clause line by line, dot by dot and comma by comma as is done with domestic legislation. That is what we want and nothing else will do.
214
Having said that, and having had this helpful discussion, I shall not put the House to the trouble of voting on the amendment this evening. I believe that the amendments are extremely good. I shall withdraw the amendment in the hope that the noble Baroness and others will reflect upon it for a future occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33 to 36 not moved.]
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
European Union: legal personality
(". Her Majesty's Government shall ensure that the United Kingdom does not, without the prior approval of Parliament, give its agreement to any proposal under which the European Union (as distinct from the European Community) shall have legal personality.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is not an easy amendment but I shall move it as quickly as I can in view of the lateness of the hour. The Treaty on European Union, which is what we are discussing, states quite clearly in the first paragraph of Title I that:
"By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union hereinafter called the 'Union'".
That has no juridical effect. It merely means that the European Community—I use the politically and legally correct term—has decided to change the name of the band, so to speak. It is rather strange. It must be rather more than that because it has imposed upon the citizens of every single nation state of Europe a citizenship of that Union.
The bald heading of Title II states:
"Provisions amending the Treaty establishing the. European Community",
which is the Treaty of Rome,
"with a view to establishing European Community".
The word "economic" has been dropped. That sends an enormous signal to so many people in the United Kingdom who say, "Ah, here we go. Look to the language and you will find the truth. As soon as people start mucking about with the language, you know that there is dirty work afoot".
What concerns me more than anything else—and that is why I have tabled the amendment—is that there is an intention among many, not least in the European Parliament, to give the European Union a legal personality which now resides with the European Community and all its institutions. If there is any movement in that direction, it should be looked at with immense care.
The reason for that is extremely simple. The two-pillar principle which has been aclumbrated with great skill by my noble friend Lady Chalker will go out of the window. It is for that reason that I am concerned that immense care should be taken if a legal juridical personality is given to the European Union. I should like to know what the Minister has to say in that regard. I beg to move.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thought for a moment that my noble friend Lord Morris was not going to deal with the question of the legal personality to which his amendment refers. The

215
amendment seeks to require Parliament to approve any proposal which gives the European Union a legal personality.
The amendment also draws attention to an important distinction between the European Union and the European Community. I believe that the Union is best characterised as an association of member states which, for certain purposes and in certain ways described in the treaty, act in common. The Union acts through its component parts—namely, the Community on the one hand (covered by Titles II to IV) and on the other the member states, which act intergovernmentally under the common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs pillars of the treaty (under Titles V and VI).
The Union is simply an over-arching concept which links the different methods of operation and co-operation; but legally it is the Community that acts under Community business and the member states will, act under each of the two pillars. In my view, it would be a mistake to try to fit the Union into other international models; for example, the Community, a state, or an international organisation like NATO or the United Nations. The Community is quite unique and so is the Union.
My noble friend raised the question of conferring a legal personality on the Union in the Maastricht Treaty. There is no clause conferring such a legal personality on the Union in the treaty. That contrasts with Article 210 of the Treaty of Rome, which expressly provided that,
"the Community shall have legal personality".
Therefore, the functions which one would expect the Union to exercise if it had such a personality—which it does not —are exercised by the Community; for example, all provisions on concluding external treaties are actually in the Community section and give the Community power to act at the behest of the member states. Citizenship of the Union is also in the Community section. That is given effect by Community measures and enforced by Community procedures.
I hope the points I have made in answer to my noble friend show that there is a clear intention of the parties not to confer any legal personality on the Union. I should simply point out to the House that the question was raised during the negotiations. The Dutch presidency said very firmly that the Union would not have legal personality. That was supported by the Community legal service; there was no dissent from any country and the director of the Commission's legal service has also, in evidence to the European Parliament, taken the view that the Union lacks legal personality.
I believe that the fears of my noble friend Lord Morris are unfounded and that the amendment is both unnecessary and undesirable. In the light of what I have just said, I trust that he will agree that his fear is not a real one. I hope, therefore, that he will not press the amendment. However, should he do so, I must advise your Lordships to resist it.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I listened with as much care as I could to my noble friend. She answered me
216
most fully and there is much in what she said from which I draw great comfort. However, my noble friend seemed to suggest that I am seeing ghosts; that is not so. Although my noble friend sees no prospect of the Union having a legal personality, if she has read—and I am sure that she has—the draft by the institutional affairs committee of the European Parliament, she will know that that draft is determined to give a legal personality to the European Union. Article 2 of Title I—that contains the fundamental principles of that draft constitution—agrees that the union is of a juridical nature.
I know this is only a draft. However, many Members of Parliament and their clerks and assistants do not go to an immense amount of work constructing draft constitutions of a union just for fun. This matter is not just a figment of my imagination; it is a fear which has led me to move this amendment. However, I have listened to what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Social Policy
(". This Act shall not come into force until all Member States of the Community have entered into an agreement that is legally binding under the law of the Community that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Treaty on European Union or any of the Treaties or of the Community Treaties as from time to time defined by the European Communities Act 1972, the Community will not introduce or implement any Regulations or Directives under any of the said Treaties which could be introduced under the provisions of the Agreement annexed to the Protocol on Social Policy agreed at Maastricht.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I have much pleasure and some indignation in moving this amendment. I refer to a familiar theme. What divides us more than judgments about policy are differences on how seriously to take the particular terms of the Maastricht Treaty embodied in this Bill. We need to draw on our experience of the Single European Act.
The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 38 seeks to strengthen the opt-out that we treasure and trust to be fireproof. We believe that our opt-out should not be frustrated by any devious or perverse effort on the part of the Commission to develop under some other heading directives that would normally appear under the heading of social policy.
Why are we so sceptical and so cynical as to suppose that there might be an effort to frustrate our opt-out? I must dig a little into the history of the Single European Act. I shall try to do that as briefly as possible as I assume we are all totally knowledgeable about the precedents in this matter.
A little earlier we heard that fears of the kind we are raising now were placated at the time of the passage of the Single European Act. Lynda Chalker, as she then was—she is now the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—gave an assurance to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons on 7th May 1986. I do not

217
wish to quote her comments in full and I do not wish to be accused of taking the comments out of context. However, her key sentence was:
"Majority voting will apply in the areas where we wish it to apply. When we do not wish it to apply, it will not do so".
The extension of qualified majority voting under Articles 100a and 118, was to be confined to very particular aspects of European policy. Article 100a sought to extend qualified majority voting only for the purposes of completing the single market. It specifically excluded fiscal provisions, the free movement of persons and the rights and interests of employed persons.
In the most blatant violation of that simple distinction we saw the draft directive on employment conditions for part-time workers under Article 100a. The directive to apply to part-time workers—
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for giving way. We all have sympathy with the noble Lord for the short notice with which he has had to move the amendment, but I believe that I should draw to the attention of your Lordships that the noble Lord has not said one word about the amendment which he is moving, which relates to social policy.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am trying to explain why the amendment has been put forward. The purpose is to avoid the frustration of our opt-out on social policy. It stems from our anxiety about the deceits which have been practised in the past, that those deceits might be practised again, and that our opt-out will be bypassed by social policy directives being raised under other headings where qualified majority voting would apply.
The example that I am giving is the part-time workers directive which has been drafted under Article 100a. That would normally have been thought to be excluded because it concerns the rights and interests of employed persons. But no, the directive was presented by the Commission on the basis that there had been an increase in the use of part-time or temporary workers, that the arrangements vary from one country to another, that those variations comprise a distortion of competition and that the differences in costs in relation to entitlement to holidays and so forth distort the single market. Therefore, a social policy measure was introduced as though it was really to complete the market. It is that kind of twist and devious interpretation which has caused us to have the greatest anxiety.
There are many precedents of that kind. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others may pounce on me and say that I am moving away from the amendment. However, it seems perfectly clear to me that our opt-out is not the watertight shield which we expected against further incursions on British sovereignty in the matter of the shaping of social policy.
The reason is twofold. First, our European partners take a different view from us on the conditions for the single market. It is rather sweet in a way. They believe that a single market can only be fairly competitive if costs are equalised at the outset. That is perfectly
218
preposterous. It is a rather childlike and innocent notion that there is equality and solidarity in these great phrases. Our partners say that we should start by equalising conditions but totally ignore the elementary observation that competition involves striving between firms or countries with differing, levels of cost. They say that we have to equalise costs at the outset in order to make competition fair. Such thinking, which is tenuously called economic analysis, pervades the argumentation emanating from the Commission.
We are very worried about that, not least because our opt-out protocol indicates that our protection is:
"without prejudice to the provisions of this Treaty, particularly those relating to social policy which constitute an integral part of the 'acquis communautaire'".
Acquis communautaire is the highbrow phrase for the whole ragbag—the accumulated pile of law, directives and so forth.
We are anxious that the acquis communautaire will be held intact and that the Treaty of Rome will be ransacked to find ways in which measures from which we would normally have obtained exemption will be brought up under different headings. Not only the Commission but the European Court in various judgments has preferred measures brought forward under those titles on which qualified majority voting rather than unanimity applies. In some cases a motion can be brought under one of two headings: in one case unanimity is required; in the other case qualified majority voting is required. The Commission, and the European Court confirming the Commission, would always prefer the application of qualified majority voting. Therefore we believe that the opt-out is not satisfactory.
Finally, our anxiety is based not merely on the obvious observation that our European colleagues have a quite different view about the nature of competition and the acceptability of initial inequalities of cost. It is that the European Court takes a quite different approach from that with which we are more familiar in this country. I have the weighty authority of a standard textbook on European law. It is the fifth edition by Lasok and Bridge. The European Court's approach to interpretation has been described in the textbook as,
"references to the spirit or the aims of the Treaties [to] enable the Court to fill the gaps in the system and so 'up-date' the text. In doing so, the Court has consciously acted not only as the 'Constitutional Court' of the Community but also as an architect of European integration".
That is a summary to indicate that the European Court takes a different view from the British courts, which rely on common law in which we try to go back to the text and relate each new proposal to the letter of the text.
In this situation we have the expansion of the development of the law. It is called creative accountancy when local authorities adopt a similar course. The evidence is that the European Court is anxious to strengthen what it calls solidarity and cohesion, which it interprets as strengthening the centralised decision-making power, rather than leaving those decisions within the hands of the separate communities. I have indicated our anxiety. I beg to move.
Lord Carr of Hadley: My Lords, hitherto during the debates I have not found it too difficult to resist the temptation to intervene. However, one or two recent amendments have driven me beyond the point of endurance. I had thought that noble Lords who objected to the treaty had two main principles in mind. First, I thought that they were resisting the treaty because they wished to preserve our present system of parliamentary democracy and government. However, as we heard during one recent debate on an amendment, one of their objectives is to tie the hands of future parliaments and governments in a way which is totally contrary to what they seek to preserve. In fact they would change the nature of our parliamentary democracy far more than the treaty ever could, even if some of their worst fears proved to be true—which I do not believe they will.
Secondly, I thought that noble Lords who took that view wanted a Europe of partnership between countries rather than a federal unitary state. With that I wholly agree. I do not share their terrible spectres. But if you want a partnership, you have to enter into discussion with your partners as free and equal participants. That is not what the noble Lord wants in an amendment like this. He wants the British partner to talk to the others with hands and feet firmly tied. Whenever a partner or would be partner wants to raise something, the British delegate will have to say, "Sorry, I have no negotiating room at all. I must go back and ask nanny before I can talk to you". I hope that this kind of amendment will be firmly rejected, if it is not immediately withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have two sympathies with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. The first relates to his endeavours to move an amendment when his time for preparation, through no fault of his, was on the short side. Therefore, I congratulate him on the second half of his speech and on getting into the tram-lines of the amendment that he was addressing.
My second sympathy is more substantive. The noble Lord referred to the posted workers directive. Sub-committee E, on which I sit, of our European Communities Committee put the directive under scrutiny and provided a number of comments on it. I was going to take up the directive with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he made his very persuasive speech in Committee on the social chapter, but by that stage I had been restrained by my Front Bench from making an intervention. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, again raises the issue of the social chapter, as I anticipate he may do, I shall certainly come in and use some of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has used on the posted workers directive.
It was not under Article 100a that the Council was proposing to implement the directive. It was another article in the treaty. Indeed, your Lordships' committee was somewhat doubtful about the propriety of choosing another article under the treaty for the adoption of the directive.
Having said that, I would ask your Lordships to look at the amendment—I have said before that we must have some discipline in our proceedings—to see
220
what it says. The amendment is a wholly wrecking amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has told us that he is supportive of the Treaty of Rome, a view that we have not heard very clearly during his submissions to your Lordships. But he made it plain earlier today that he is supportive of the Treaty of Rome. I join other noble Lords in agreeing that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not a wrecker. But this amendment, which he had the misfortune at very short notice to introduce to your Lordships, is a wholly wrecking amendment.
All other member states except Great Britain and Northern Ireland are committed to the protocol on social policy. For this Government to say to other member states, which the amendment is seeking to state, that we will not ratify that treaty unless all the other member states which are committed to the protocol agree not to bring in directives and regulations under it is to have the reality of compelling Her Majesty's Government not to ratify the treaty. That is why the amendment is a wholly wrecking amendment. I ask your Lordships to look at the amendment and at all other amendments to see what they say. If they turn out to be, as this amendment turns out to be, totally wrecking, they should be rejected as such.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Carr in that I suspect that his patience snapped just a little too late. I think that his remarks were addressed to Amendment No. 31, which has already gone, rather than to Amendment Nos. 38 and 39, on which we are now engaged. I say that I have some sympathy with him because I was caught in rather the same way in that I was still sitting quietly reading outside when we reached Amendments Nos. 38 and 39, having assumed that we would still be on Amendment No. 31 at this time.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we dealt with Amendment No. 31 before dinner.
Lord Tebbit: Yes, indeed, my Lords. So I say what I do with some considerable feeling of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Carr in that matter.
If he looks at the amendments, which consist of new clauses, he will see that they have a simple and clear purpose; namely, to ensure that directives are not forced upon us by using what one might describe as the easy option for the Commission of going through a route where qualified majority voting applies rather than what would appear to be the more appropriate route, which might be blocked because of the need for unanimity. I shall come back to that point. But first I think it is essential to look at the background to this amendment.
When the Prime Minister returned from Maastricht, there was a widespread welcome, at least among Conservatives, for his success, as it would seem, in securing what has been wrongly described as Britain's opt-out from the provisions of the social chapter—wrongly described of course because it is not an opt-out for us; it is a mechanism by which, as noble Lords know, we have agreed to allow the others to use

221
the machinery of the treaty and its institutions to impose the social chapter on themselves, leaving us, in theory, on one side and free from it.
However, since then, the treaty has come under quite close scrutiny. And indeed, we have also already had our first experience of social legislation being forced upon us, not through the route which one would expect, which is perhaps debarred, one might say, by the unanimity requirement, but under provisions where it could be forced through by qualified majority voting. We had a debate about this matter at Committee stage and I do not propose to go over that ground again; although there were some aspects of the Minister's reply which left me somewhat less than satisfied.
We cannot come to a conclusion on the merits of these amendments without some brief remarks about the nature of the social chapter itself. I do not believe that there is any difference between any of us in this House or indeed in the other place over the desirability of good working conditions and good pay. I think that that can be taken for granted. But there is a difference between us over the question of how those objectives are best achieved—whether by legislation in a corporatist style or, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggests, through the mechanism of the market.
There is a further difference between those of us who believe that the argument is best settled in these islands by the people of these islands, and those who believe that these are matters which are not suitable for being settled in this country by the people of these islands; that they are much too important, and the people of these islands are, as we are frequently told, not able to take decisions for themselves. Even the question of whether they should approve or disapprove the ratification of the treaty is much too complicated for them, we are told, and they should be protected from such things by much wiser and more competent people—in that case, in Parliament; and in this particular case by those wise people in Brussels.
The snag is that if the matter is settled in Brussels, it will be settled by a government in which we are always a minority partner by definition. So it will not be settled by the people of these islands in a manner which I think appropriate and where I am glad to say—and I know that this will warm the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Richard—that I have the support of such good Socialists as Mr. Tony Benn. Indeed, Mr. Benn is a very good Socialist. He believes that whether we have a Socialist country or not should be decided in this country and not elsewhere.
Continental practice and the nature of continental law have brought about what we would describe as an essentially corporatist treaty. The Commission behaves in an essentially corporatist way. That is the nature of the beast. Corporatism is not necessarily a bad thing. There have been bad corporatists and good corporatists in history. I believe that it is a less than satisfactory system and frequently open to wide abuse. From time to time we in this country have tried it, most notably under the Government led by my right honourable friend Mr. Heath. All such attempts have ended in tears in one way or another.
222
On the whole we have favoured market solutions, using the law only to outlaw specific abuses. Again, that is essentially the nature of British law. It is not general in its nature. If it sees an abuse, it deals with it in a specific manner. So our practices are essentially discordant with those of our partners: first, on the question of whether these forms of social protection are desirable; and secondly, as regards how they should be introduced.
Until recently it has been possible to argue that continental practice has been accompanied by higher living standards and greater economic success than we have enjoyed. It is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has made on more than one occasion during our debates. If we had had these debates a few years ago, he might have had a little more justification on his side. However now we see the German motor industry, for example, losing ground to the British motor industry and we begin to question that practice. As we see France going more deeply into recession and Germany in very considerable economic difficulty, we wonder whether or not it is axiomatic that their approach is better than ours.
But those difficulties, in particular as German industry becomes non-competitive, are not leading to a change of practice on the continent. Instead, there is recognition of growing non-competitiveness, accompanied by a resolve to make the competition less competitive. Our German and French friends, finding that the burdens that they carry are so heavy that they are becoming non-competitive, have called upon us to encumber ourselves with their high-cost policies in order to reduce our competitiveness. That is quite understandable. As we heard earlier today, the fixed exchange rate system plays a role in reducing our competitiveness—or rather it did, but no longer—and so does the weight of the social chapter.
Once we succumb to the chapter and all Europe is at the mercy of the competitive economies of the outside world, the French will lead the pack which calls for protection from low-priced imports and the gospel of protection will again be promoted. That is why it is so important that we put some barriers in the place of those uncompetitive practices that are being wished upon us in a manner which we would regard as contrary to the treaty. It is certainly contrary to what the Prime Minister thought was the intention of the treaty.
It is important to look at the changes that have occurred in the treaty, or rather through the treaty, to the Treaty of Rome. The new Article G(2) (on page 9) states:
"Article 2 shall be replaced by the following".
It is important to look at the article as it was before, otherwise we do not see the full impact of the treaty and why it is necessary to protect ourselves further by amendments of the kind that are before the House.
The treaty did not refer originally to anything much in the article beyond what might be called "economic" matters. The new insertions relate to the high degree of convergence of economic performance; the high level of employment and social protection; the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion among member states.

223
All that is well and good and no doubt is of noble purpose. The question is whether or not, by inserting those new words, we have opened up a new way in which one section of the treaty is used in conjunction with another to take us in directions in which we do not wish to go.
All that was expressed clearly by politicians on the Continent. It was the French Minister for European Affairs who said of the Hoover affair,
"It is unacceptable that this social dumping goes on, that people want to level wages down. That is why there is the Maastricht Treaty and, if there were not Maastricht, there would be the law of the jungle everywhere".
We do not yet have the treaty of Maastricht, so we can question whether at this moment in Europe there is, in her words,
"the law of the jungle everywhere".
There is no doubt as to what is in her mind about the treaty; that is, that the treaty exists to prevent social dumping, as she calls it. It is to prevent this country. having a competitive advantage over Brussels in the way we thought we had secured through the Social Protocol. It is not inconceivable that she could be wrong. But I happen to believe that she is right. That is one of the principal reasons why the French Government are anxious to ensure that the treaty is ratified.
We have seen Articles 100a and 118a. Article 100a is concerned with the single market and competitiveness, and 118a is concerned with health and safety. They are being used in a manner which goes around the protection that we believed we had in the Social Protocol.
10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the argument in relation to the health and safety provisions and working hours has nothing to do with the protocol. It is under the existing treaty. Maastricht has not yet been introduced. Is that not so?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, of course they come under the existing treaty. the noble Lord is missing the point.
Lord Morris: Deliberately, my Lords.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, my noble friend says "deliberately"; I am not sure. The point is, first, that it was the Single European Act—we must not forget this—which introduced majority voting on matters of health and safety and Article 118a. That indicates the goodwill of the British Government towards getting the matters of health and safety through. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, will remember the saga of the lead and asbestos directives in which both he and I featured.
Lord Richard: And on the same side, my Lords.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, indeed, we were "collaborateurs", if I may use that expression. We dealt with such difficult matters as the Danish objection to giving greater protection to women workers than to men, maintaining that that was sexually discriminatory. We eventually got round that. But the point I am making is that those articles
224
are there for specific purposes: the protection and health of workers in one case, and the elimination of unfair practices to restrict competition in the other. Of course they are not there for the promotion of social legislation, and I think it will be made very much easier for them to be used for that purpose now that the social chapter is part of Community law and now that paragraph 2 of Article G of Title II has been changed.
That is why we are going to see an increasingly aggressive stance by the Commission in bringing matters forward which might have been brought under provisions which require unanimity. But instead of that they will bring them forward under provisions which allow qualified majority voting. The purpose of these amendments is, broadly speaking, to say that if an item could have been brought under a section of the treaty which requires unanimity, it should not be brought under a section which only requires qualified majority voting. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable protection. That is the purpose of these amendments, and that is why I believe they should be supported.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the terrible thing sometimes is that one actually reads the amendment before one listens to the speeches. The noble Lord says that this is all about avoiding a situation in which decisions can be taken by qualified majority, which he assumes would then be binding upon the United Kingdom. The amendment says that in any situation in which a regulation or directive could be brought either under the treaty to which we are a party or under the social protocol to which we are not a party, then, ipso facto—never mind the merits of the issue or the argument about whether it is good for British workers or not—that is the determining test. If it passes that test, it goes off into the protocol machinery which by definition, because of this marvellous opt-out the Prime Minister negotiated for us, is not applicable to the United Kingdom.
That is what it is all about. I see the noble Lord shakes his head. In other words, what it is all about is that Community social legislation for the future shall be pushed into the provisions of the social protocol and shall not be subject to the provisions of the treaty. That is what it is all about, despite the fact that under the protocol certain decisions have to be taken by unanimity and not by qualified majority voting. It does not matter whether it is something that British workers would find desirable or whether British industry would find it desirable, whether it is to do with social security and social protection of workers, whether it is to do with collective representation, collective defence of the interests of workers and employers—not even whether it is to do with encouraging consultation between management and labour. Never mind: if it comes under this label, it has nothing to do with the United Kingdom and it goes off there. I am bound to say that if ever there was a narrow view—an extraordinarily narrow and limited view—of the position of the United Kingdom inside the European Community, that is it.
Can I leave just one last thought with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, because I listened to him for a

225
quarter of an hour talking about this, and I think that the point is a very simple one. With great respect to him, he could put it in 30 seconds. He talks about democracy and about democracy within the European Community. I remember that many years ago I was in Alabama in the south of America. A rather nice lady came up to me with a microphone and thrust it under my nose and asked: "Mr. Ambassador, what do you think about all these undemocratic goings-on at the United Nations?" I paused for a moment and asked: "What undemocratic goings-on?" She said: "Well, you know, Mr. Ambassador, they are always voting us down".
In a sense, running like a continuous thread through the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is that somehow or other this country is in a unique position so far as concerns our Community partners. He puts "the Continent" in inverted commas almost as if it were "that lot over there". He refers to the Continental view of the law, social policy and economics. He suggests that somehow or other we have no part in that. It is so different that Britain cannot adapt to the Continent; it has no relevance to what goes on in this country and therefore we should retreat from it. I find that an absolutely astonishing attitude with which to approach the affairs of Britain in the late 20th century.
I leave the House with one final thought. Whether something is done under the health and safety regulations or under other provisions of the treaty; whether something is done under the old provisions of the treaty or under the terms of the Social Protocol, were the noble Lord's amendment to be carried, protection is provided by the European Court. His noble friend Lord Harris of High Cross did exactly the same; when in doubt, attack the Court. Why attack the Court? Because they are all wicked Continentals whose main purpose in life is to do Britain down on any issue upon which we come before the Court. What absolute nonsense!
Anyone who has observed the Court at work will know that it is an extremely high-powered, skilled and distinguished group of jurists who do their best to interpret the Treaty of Rome and the other treaties in a strictly legal way. I am beginning to resent the continual sniping at the good faith and integrity of members of the European Court.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I would like to leave the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a little thought—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no, not "a little thought".
Lord Morris: My Lords, with a question. Will he consider this view? The fundamental difference in essential matters between the United Kingdom and the Continent is that the laws of England and those of the United States, the Dominions and those now independent Afro-Asian states, were and are based on the libertarian principles of common law. In contrast, the European system of Roman law is based on didactic codified readings of authority derived from Justinian and Napoleon. It is not merely a juristic difference, but also a fundamental divergence of
226
outlook, the one favouring freedom and the other emphasising authority. Does the noble Lord agree with that view?
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I admire the jurisprudential skill of the noble Lord in putting such a complicated question in such a clear and unambiguous way. I do not agree with it because the law is not static. Anglo-Saxon law and Continental law have changed. If anything, there has been a coming together rather than a growing apart.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that essentially what he has said is that in his belief it is no longer appropriate for the people of this kingdom to decide their own affairs in these matters and that where there is a difference between ourselves and a majority of the others, we must bow the knee to them in all respects? I find that is a not an idea which is attractive to me nor to most people in these islands.
Lord Richard: My Lords, neither is it attractive to me. It is a total travesty of what I was saying. Some of these matters are in the interests of the British people. If they are in their interests then any sensible government will pursue them. At the moment the real question is whether it is in the interests of the United. Kingdom to co-operate with our European partners in the manner set out in the treaty. I believe that it is. The noble Lord regards himself and the people of this country as so different from our Continental neighbours that such co-operation must, almost by definition, be against the interests of the British people. I totally reject that.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that he had my sympathy also for being almost outside the Chamber as we approached Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. Nevertheless, he asked some cogent questions and I shall do my best to answer them.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was absolutely right in his description of Amendment No. 39. It can best be summarised by saying that it requires the Government to veto any proposal for action in the social field by the Community that relates to any matter contained in the agreement between the Eleven on social policy. We are not part of the Eleven. By virtue of our agreement, we are separate from the Eleven.
Similarly, I can summarise the purpose of Amendment No. 38. It is to delay the Act coming into force until there is an agreement that the agreement between the Eleven on social policy, rather than the existing provisions of the Treaty of Rome, will be used for all proposals for legislation on employment and social affairs. That is undesirable both in terms of delaying the coming into force of the Act and because it requires an agreement that simply would not be negotiable.
I understand why there is anxiety. This has not been an easy part of trying to decide what is best for British industry and British workers, and we do have a

227
difference of opinion with our continental partners. But the very fact that we faced up to that difference of opinion and sought to get a protocol which allowed the Eleven to go their way on the issues on which they wished to combine while we have an opt-out which is valid and which will be useful seems to me to be honest, direct and open. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that the opt-out was not water-tight. I could not disagree with him more. The Eleven could go far further under the social chapter than they do currently in the social field under the treaties. However, our opt-out leaves us aside from the decisions of the Eleven. That is why the protocol is powerful for us.
We regularly succeed in reducing the proposals that are put forward by the Commission. Obviously, as I have described in previous debates both in Committee and earlier on Report, it is open to us to challenge in the European Court of Justice any proposals which are adopted which we believe go beyond the powers in the treaties. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, clearly, there are eminent judges—some from this country; not all from other countries—in the European Court of Justice. In any case, saying that we can go to the European Court of Justice in challenging a decision taken in the Community is an argument against the existing treaties and not an argument against Maastricht because our opt-out has limited our further involvement.
I do not believe that the other 11 would have argued so strongly for such provisions if they were an unnecessary duplication. There is a separate way of doing things, and the social protocol unequivocally states that measures adopted under the protocol will not apply to the UK. That was unanimously agreed by all 12 member states. The protocol has treaty status and I am confident that the European Court of Justice will give it effect. Clearly, the official Opposition think so too, which is why they have gone to very considerable lengths to have us opt-in.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the present position on social affairs is admittedly difficult. Through the opt-out, we seek to ensure that it does not get any more difficult. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has used this phrase—and I may have used it previously—that although it may not be perfect and just because a burglar may climb in through the window, it is no reason to open the front door to him. I believe that in going down the path of the opt-out we are making a sensible provision.
To sum up on the amendments—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, would my noble friend kindly give way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I shall give way just this once.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Will she assure me that she is confident that we shall not have legislation which the Government believe is appropriate to the social
228
protocol—that is, social legislation—foisted upon us through other sections of the treaty where majority voting applies?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, should, under any circumstance, the other 11 seek to foist upon us legislation which is not applicable to us, we have our option to take that to the European Court of Justice. One can never be 100 per cent. certain, as my noble friend will realise if he thinks back over his many years.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, my noble friend cannot be certain.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot be certain, but I am confident—those were the words that I was going to use—because of the advice that I have received and because of the difference of the drafting of the social protocol and of the agreement which, as I said just now, was agreed unanimously by all 12 member states.
The reason that I advise your Lordships against the amendments is that they misunderstand the nature of the protocol on social policy. They misunderstand why we negotiated it at Maastricht. The Treaty of Rome provides us with the basis for EC action in the social field. We expect the Commission to continue to bring forward proposals for legislation by the 12 on the basis of the Treaty of Rome, even when the Maastricht Treaty and the protocol are in force.
We remain committed to sensible policies in the social field under the existing provisions, but as I have sought to make clear previously in your Lordships' House, we are not prepared to support the extra measures envisaged by the agreement between the 11. That would involve increased powers for the Community in the social field; a wide extension of qualified majority voting; and a decline in European competitiveness. It would do nothing to help solve the European-wide problem of unemployment with which, as we well know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and all our Ministers are committed to dealing with their partners in the Community.
I know that there are some overlaps between the existing treaty provisions in the social field and the provisions of the agreement of the other 11 member states. I am not surprised at that because the agreement of the 11 started life as proposals to substitute for the existing treaty articles on social policy. For example, minimum standards in the field of health and safety at work are covered by Article 118a of the Treaty of Rome and the health and safety of workers more generally by Article 2 of the agreement.
Taking the blanket approach which Amendment No. 38 proposes, or forcing the UK to veto any proposal for Community action in areas that might be covered by the agreement, as Amendment No. 39 seeks to do, is just not appropriate. It would mean that policies that we support such as minimum standards in health and safety, where Britain's record is second to none, could not be adopted by the European Community but rather only by the other 11 member

229
states. That would not be in our interests, and that is one further good reason why I urge your Lordships to reject the amendments should the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, press them to a vote tonight.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it has been useful to have this run around the track once again, not least because it brings into the open the contrast between the approach of the Government Front Bench and the Labour Front Bench. We heard from the Minister a frank admission that there are differences of opinion with our European partners on this matter, and that the position on social affairs is difficult. Their hope is that those difficulties will be contained by the protocol. In the sharpest contrast, we have the view of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that all is well and could hardly be better.
Lord Richard: I never said that.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, by implication, any criticism that is levelled is outside the admissible bounds of debate. We are parodied more or less as being anti-European and so on. I have heard about people going native in Brussels but the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has become a full blown native chief. He puts on that performance.
230
Our anxieties are genuine. We hope that they are misplaced. I hope that in a year or two's time the Government can demonstrate that the protocol has afforded us full protection against the worries that we have and that are shared.
Since it is approaching what I define to be the standard European bedtime, I propose that the amendment shall be withdrawn and we shall save our strength for tomorrow.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 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.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  MR. KAZEM DARABI
  MR. KAZEM DARABI
  IRANIAN ACTION AGAINST KURDISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY
  IRANIAN ACTION AGAINST KURDISH DEMOCRATIC PARTY
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ENFORCEMENT IN UK
  EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ENFORCEMENT IN UK
  NEW TAX SYSTEM
  NEW TAX SYSTEM
  M.25 AND M.4 IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
  M.25 AND M.4 IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES
  WEST COAST MAIN LINE: PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING STUDY
  WEST COAST MAIN LINE: PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING STUDY
  RUSSIAN MEDAL: WEARING BY EX- SERVICEMEN
  RUSSIAN MEDAL: WEARING BY EX- SERVICEMEN
  MONITORING MISSION, FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: MEDALS
  MONITORING MISSION, FORMER YUGOSLAVIA: MEDALS
  BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTS, LONDON
  BONE MARROW TRANSPLANTS, LONDON
  NHS USER AND CARER GROUP
  NHS USER AND CARER GROUP
  SUNDAY TRADING REFORM
  SUNDAY TRADING REFORM
  PRISONERS: ASSAULTS AND SUICIDES
  PRISONERS: ASSAULTS AND SUICIDES
  ASSAULTS AND SUICIDES IN PRISON IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
  ASSAULTS AND SUICIDES IN PRISON IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS