Sitting of 14 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (WESTER BRIDGE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Mr. Secretary Langpresented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Regional Council (Wester Bridge); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 237.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Baghdad (US Attack)
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the United Kingdom's Arab allies about the United States' attack upon Baghdad; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The policies of the Baghdad regime of course cause us great concern and therefore we have frequent and close consultations with our Arab friends and partners.
    Mr. Galloway: I thank the Minister for that answer, although it did not answer my question. In their discussions, did his allies tell him that when the 1,000 lb of explosives landed on the house of the celebrated Iraqi artist Leila al-Attar, killing her, her husband, and a member of her staff, and cruelly maiming her children, they had any idea what would arise from the ashes of that disaster? What rises from the ashes of Al Mansour is the barbarism of extremism and fundamentalism, which is breathing down the necks of the allies with whom he has had regular discussions. When the Minister reads of the latest murderous assault that will come any day now, will he bear in mind the fact that as long as our Government and the western powers are ready to pulverise Iraq, but appease Israel, and are ready to starve and blockade innocent Iraqis, but allow Serbia to get off with genocide in Yugoslavia, our Government's policies will be contributing to the disaster that is on its way?
    Mr. Hogg: The death of anyone not connected with the aggressive policies of Iraq is to be deeply regretted. However, it was quite plain that the Government of Iraq
    964
    were behind the attempt to assassinate former President Bush. That was a clear attack on the security of the United States. We believe that, in invoking article 51 of the charter, the United States was entitled to take the action it did, which received broad support.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: In considering a response to Iraq's failure to comply with the appropriate Security Council resolution, will the Government be in touch with the political opponents of Saddam Hussein outside Iraq and the Arab countries threatened by Iraq, and will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any action taken is proportionate, involves the minimum loss of life and advances the long-term strategic aims of the United Nations?
    Mr. Hogg: We will indeed ensure that any action that may have to be taken—I hasten to say that I hope that no action will have to be taken—is proportionate, causes the minimum casualties and is firmly based on international law. We are in continuing discussions with our Arab friends, partners and others about that issue and related matters.
    Mr. Dalyell: For the reasons that I gave the Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Burton, in the interview that was arranged for me by the Foreign Secretary, do Ministers accept that, whether they like it or not, sanctions and bombing strengthen the regime of Saddam Hussein in a way that nothing else could?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not accept that point, but I accept that it is extraordinarily difficult by a policy either of sanctions or of bombing to displace Saddam Hussein. It is essential for all of us to ensure full compliance by Iraq with the mandatory elements of the Security Council resolutions, especially those that relate to the eradication of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We must hold to the sanctions regime if we are to achieve that.
    Lady Olga Maitland: What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend had from our Arab allies regarding the missing 627 Kuwaiti prisoners of war—male and female civilians—who were taken from their homes three years ago? To this date, Iraq has failed to comply with United Nations resolutions seeking their release. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make the greatest endeavours to achieve justice in that important humanitarian matter?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The Government of Kuwait raise the question with us on every possible occasion and we raise it with the Iraqis in New York and at the sanctions review meetings. It is one of the very important respects in which Iraq is in breach of the mandatory parts of the Security Council resolutions and it makes the relaxation of the sanctions regime impossible at the moment.
    Mrs. Mahon: How does the Minister expect to secure the release of the three Britons being held in Iraq when his Government condone the bombing? The family of Michael Wainwright think that every time the British Government support such actions, they put the lives of those men in danger.
    Mr. Hogg: It is important to separate the two issues. We are, of course, very concerned about the position of Mr. Ride, Mr. Wainwright and Mr. Dunn and we take

    965
    every opportunity to impress on the Iraqis the fact that we regard the sentences imposed on them as outrageous. As the hon. Lady knows, our representatives saw the three men a few days ago. The Russians have been extremely helpful in facilitating visits to the three men. We will do all that we can to secure their release, but we will not pay any kind of blackmail and we insist on our right to support, for example, the Americans when they exercise their right of self-defence under the charter of the United Nations.
    Mr. Brazier: My right hon. and learned Friend has taken a tough and robust stand in forcing the Iraqi regime to conform to the United Nations requirements on weapons of mass destruction. Does he agree that this is a matter in which the vital interests of this country and of every other country in the west and in the civilised world are fundamentally involved? If the west backs off and the United Nations requirements on weapons of mass destruction are not enforced, the consequences are too horrible to consider.
    Mr. Hogg: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. I had the pleasure of seeing Ambassador Ekeus a few days ago and he made two important points. First, he believes that there has been a substantial eradication of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, but that it has not been completed. Secondly, he believes that provided that we hold to a tough verification and monitoring regime in future, we can prevent the Government of Iraq from reassembling weapons of mass destruction. He goes on to say—and I agree—that if we fail to hold to a tough policy of monitoring and verification, the chances are that the Iraqi Government will do just that.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Although we of course support the determination to enforce the resolutions of the UN Security Council in respect of Iraq, what evidence is there that the frequent launching of missiles against Iraq is hastening that process? Is not it really the case that as well as causing the inevitable slaughter of innocent civilians, it causes Iraq to become more intransigent, especially when missiles are launched under questionable legal authority? Is not there also another grave consequence, which is that our friends and allies in other Arab countries in the middle east are themselves politically destabilised? Is not it far better to pursue the action being taken now in the name of the United Nations, which is further discussions and an insistence on Iraq's meeting the requirements of the resolutions, than to contemplate yet another missile attack, with yet more civilian casualties and yet more support for the odious regime of Saddam Hussein?
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a number of points and I shall be unable to reply to them all. First, I say at once that I deplore as much as he does the civilian casualties. That is, indeed, a tragedy and one cannot pretend otherwise. Secondly, I do not believe that our friends and allies in the middle east are being destabilised.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Yes, they are.
    Mr. Hogg: I do not believe—it is a matter of judgment—that they are being destabilised in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has claimed. Thirdly, I do not feel uneasy about the legal basis for the action in the way that the right hon. Gentleman apparently does.
    966
    Lastly, of course we hope that we can avoid future military action. I hope that the Iraqis will comply with the mandatory elements of resolution 687, but the right hon. Gentleman must ask himself what we should do if they do not. That takes me back to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).

    G7 Summit (Tokyo)
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the G7 summit in Tokyo.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement in the House on Monday. The progress made on trade was especially welcome and the market access package endorsed by the summit provides the much-needed impetus for resuming the multilateral negotiations in Geneva.
    Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was the British Government's agenda for international economic recovery that found widespread acceptance in Tokyo, as it did in Copenhagen some weeks ago? As Britain is a leading advocate of free trade, does not the enhanced prospect of a successful conclusion to the GATT talks later this year mean good news for the British economy and for British jobs?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. We have pressed that view for a long time. It has proved to be a long road. We do not believe in systems for regional trade—Fortress Europe, Fortress Asia or Fortress North America—which are not good for a world trading country such as ours, so we were encouraged by the success on trade access. We can approach the main GATT negotiations in Geneva with a good deal more optimism than seemed likely a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Winnick: What is the use of fine words about Bosnia when, on Monday, 12 people were killed and 15 were seriously injured queuing for water as a result of the action by Serbian war criminals? It should be clear to the Government, and to other western Governments, following the summit, that the Serbians will continue their aggression, their murder and their crimes and atrocities against humanity, as long as they believe that they can get away with it? What on earth is the west going to do about it?
    Mr. Hurd: I will talk about that when I answer a later question, but the two immediate needs are to keep people alive by continuing humanitarian supplies—Mrs. Ogata urged that in London on Monday—and to bring the fighting to an end, which will happen only through a negotiated settlement, unless the hon. Member and others in the west are prepared to do something that no one has been prepared to do, which is to send an international expeditionary force to impose a particular solution. No one has suggested that, save one or two Opposition Members. No Government have suggested that. The rhetoric that has done so much harm in the matter has come from exaggerated expectations, leading to exaggerated criticisms.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important outcome of the G7 meeting was that it was

    967
    plain that the British Government were not going to engage in any military intervention in Bosnia? Was not that a significant demonstration of leadership and choice to the British nation and a rejection of the dangerous and deceitful dream of world government, which the parties of the left in the House enjoyed for at least 100 years? Did not the Government at last demonstrate a true Tory view—that British soldiers should risk their lives only in upholding the British national interest?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows that 2,500 British troops are in Bosnia. They are helping to keep people alive. They have so far escorted 950 convoys and 45,700 tonnes of food, mainly to Muslims and Croats. Many Bosnians, of all backgrounds, would have been dead had it not been for the British effort, so I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that was, and remains, a thoroughly worthwhile effort. However, I do not believe, and have never used rhetoric that would lead anyone to believe, that it was part of Britain's interests to pretend that we could sort out every man-made disaster in the world, of which there are many at the moment. The United Nations is struggling with great difficulty in places such as Somalia, Iraq—which we have just dealt with—Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and Bosnia to do what it can. It is in our interest to do our bit, but we should not over-pretend, or let rhetoric get in the way of reality.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did the G7 consider the reports from Iran that it might want to send as many as 17,000 troops to Bosnia? If that were to happen, what would be the response of the western democracies?
    Mr. Hurd: It is for the Secretary-General to assess replies to his request for more troops for Bosnia. I am glad that the French are sending more and I hope that other European countries that have been thinking of it will do so. I believe that there is a strong case for having Muslim contingents there. I do not personally think that Iran would be a suitable candidate for that.

    Hong Kong
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: On Friday 9 July. I reported to him on my visit to Peking on 8 and 9 July. In Peking I had useful wide-ranging talks with Chinese leaders. On the electoral issue, I was able to focus their attention on the essential points and to make plain the need for more rapid progress. I emphasised the need for fair and open elections acceptable to the people of Hong Kong and for the negotiations to concentrate on three things: the functional constituencies, the election committee and the through train—that is to say, the need for clear, objective criteria for candidates standing in the 1995 elections to remain members of the legislature for a full four-year term. Chinese leaders also agreed to speed up work on the airport and in the joint liaison group.
    Mr. Sims: I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. He mentioned the joint liaison group which, clearly, has a key role to play between now and 1997, but it has been making particularly slow progress. What success does he think that he had in discussing with officials in Beijing
    968
    and with the Governor ways in which the work of that group could be expedited? Will he take this opportunity of explaining to the House the implication of the establishment with the Chinese of the preliminary working committee?
    Mr. Hurd: On the first point, yes, we made some progress inasmuch as the dates for future meetings have been fixed for September and later this year in Peking and London. I emphasized—this was not contradicted—the need to get on with much of the agenda, for example the air services agreement, defence lands and the technical changing of legislation. I hope that there is progress there, although the next few months will show whether that hope is real.
    I raised the matter of the preparatory working group with the Chinese Foreign Minister who is to be chairman of the group and received an assurance that it was not aimed at interfering in or complicating the work of the joint liaison group or, indeed, the administration of Hong Kong by Britain up to June 1997.
    Mr. Rogers: When I met Governor Patten on his visit here on 1 July I was pleased to hear that the process of getting democratic structures into place by 1997 was advancing and that the through train has been pursued assiduously. When will the Secretary of State make a decision on the future of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong? There are 7,000 such people, mainly of Indian origin, who were removed to Hong Kong as many as 100 years ago and who are likely to become stateless under the citizenship propositions. Surely they deserve much better treatment from this Government than what has been proposed.
    Mr. Hurd: This is a long-standing argument and I know the strength of the case. It was dealt with a few days ago on 9 July by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He repeated the assurance that the group already has: that if, against all expectations, they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and have nowhere else to go, the Government of the day would consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to this country.

    European Community (Enlargement)
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards enlarging the EC.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Accession negotiations are in train with Austria, Finland Sweden and Norway. The June European Council set a target date of 1 January 1995 for their accession. It also agreed that the six associate countries of eastern Europe should become members as soon as they could assume the responsibilities of membership. On 30 June, the Commission's opinions on the applications for membership of Malta and Cyprus were issued. We welcome those developments.
    Mr. Garnier: While I welcome the proposals for the accession of, in particular, the European Free Trade Association countries, because they will be net contributors, will my hon. Friend keep a firm hold on the present: first, by ensuring that the deliberations of EC Ministers are dealt with more effectively by their meetings beginning on

    969
    time; secondly, by ensuring that there is a complete absence of pettifogging and nitpicking regulations emanating from Europe; thirdly, by ensuring that article 3(b) is brought into effect as soon as possible; and, fourthly, will he do his best to ensure that the social chapter is kept well offshore?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We, too, want article 3(b) of the treaty brought into effect as soon as possible, but that requires ratification first. I know that my hon. Friend will play his part in that. I believe that the accession of the additional EFTA states will help us, as they, too, believe in a decentralised, open-trading Community with strong budget discipline. That will help us to resist those who want an enclosed, protectionist, centralised, socialist Europe.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Despite the schedule of events that the Minister sketched in his opening reply and the fact that, for example, Finland acknowledges the diplomatic role that Britain is playing within the Community to assist it in its progress towards membership, will the Minister none the less acknowledge that there are fears among various parties in various countries within the existing Community that the British Government—not least because of reports about the Foreign Office preparation for the next set of intergovernmental conferences, if we can look that far forward—see the enlargement process as a means of putting the brakes, along the lines that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) was hinting at, on the process of further European integration? Will he allay fears on that matter?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government welcome the accession negotiations, which are well under way and going well. We were in the lead in inviting other member states to set a target date for the accession of the additional states. We want to strengthen Europe by enlarging it.
    Mr. Channon: Will my hon. Friend say a word more about the accession of the associate states that were part of the old Soviet Union? What does he think is now the likely timetable for them?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We believe that Europe should be open to any application from a European state that is democratic and willing to take on the responsibilities of membership. That includes the states of eastern and central Europe. I have to be candid in saying that their membership must be some years away, but the Copenhagen summit was clear in welcoming their eventual accession.
    Mr. Hoon: Assuming that enlargement is completed successfully, what consequential changes in the decision-making processes of the European Community does the Minister expect will be necessary? In particular, does he expect that more majority voting in the Council of Ministers will be required?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, that does not necessarily follow, although it is true that the accession of four additional states will cause us to look again at some of the institutional mechanisms. The number of votes that each of the accession states has remains to be negotiated.

    Democratic Elections
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to how many countries he has made representations in the last six months urging them to hold democratic elections.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We have made such representations to 12 countries in the past six months.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that, in the middle east, the only true democracy is Israel? In view of that, and if he believes in democracy, will he tell me why the Government discriminate against Israel, in both trade and aid? We know that the shambles opposite do not know anything about democracy, dominated as they are by the unions—no say no pay, and all that nonsense—but we do. In view of that, does not he think that the Government should give their undivided support to the Government of Israel?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with my hon. Friend that Israel is a democracy, although I hope that it will resolve the problems of the occupied territories in the context of the current peace process. It is not true that we discriminate against Israel. Only last week at the Tokyo summit there was a call for removal of the Arab boycott.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that the violation by the Nigerian military authorities of the democratic process in Nigeria last month was tragic not only for the people of Nigeria, but in the precedent that it set—an all-too-frequent precedent—for those around the world who accept the democratic process only when it gives them the results that they want? Will the Minister confirm that that violation of the democratic process in Nigeria has resulted in bloodshed and a further infringement of civil and human rights? Will he further confirm to the House and to the Nigerian authorities that there can be no normalisation of relations with Nigeria—rather, relations will inevitably deteriorate—until the regime there understands that the only legitimate source of political authority is not the army but the will of the people?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have taken a strong line and we have deplored the decision of the Nigerian Government not to respect the elections and to seek another way forward. We have made it absolutely clear that we will not normalise relations until a proper democratic civilian regime is in place in Nigeria.
    Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend be making representations to the Chinese Government about the present situation in Tibet, where no democratic elections have been held since the invasion in 1948 and where recently large-scale riots in the streets have been savagely put down by the Chinese occupation forces?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that matter with the Chinese Government in Peking last week and made our position clear.
    Ms Eagle: Is the Minister aware of the increasingly dangerous situation in Cambodia following its elections, particularly the gains of influence and territory being made by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Is it not disgraceful that the western powers have included that appalling

    971
    organisation in the so-called peace effort and allowed it to make gains which bring the probability of another year zero even closer?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are actively encouraging the Cambodian authorities to complete the new constitution and form a Government who respect the wishes of the Cambodian people as expressed in that election.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sure that one of the countries to which Her Majesty's Government will have made representations is the Republic of South Africa. Have the Government expressed any preference for the sort of democratic structure that they would like to see in place in that country when the reforms—which are long overdue, and welcome—are in place? Will he acknowledge that a federal or perhaps a confederal system in South Africa is more likely not only to protect the democratic rights of minority groups but to assist that country to the economic recovery without which the people's economic aspirations are not likely to be met after the elections are held?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We welcome the South African Government's decision to hold elections on 27 April next year, but the constitutional arrangements for those elections are a matter for the South African people in their current discussions. We continue to give strong support for negotiations to end the current violence.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to ensure that Serb and Croat aggression in Bosnia is not rewarded by territorial acquisition.
    Mr. Hurd: A solution dictated by the Serbs and Croats at the expense of the Bosnian Muslims would not be accepted by the international community. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg continue the search for an equitable negotiated settlement based on the concept of one Bosnia. Mr. Stoltenberg briefed the United Nations Security Council yesterday. This would have to involve Serb and Croat withdrawal from the present positions taken by force. Sanctions will continue to be enforced against Serbia and Montenegro until the conditions set by the Security Council are met. We believe that the time has come for the European Community, perhaps on Monday, to consider economic measures against Croatia so long as Croatia, too, is engaged in activities contrary to internationally established principles.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that that answer essentially reiterates the policy that he and the Government have pursued during the past year and more? That policy has failed to stop the aggression by the Serbs and Croats and the sickening slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Sarajevo and countless other Bosnian towns.
    When will the Foreign Secretary recognise that the lesson of history is that aggressors are not stopped by fine words and declarations, but only by the prospect of superior military force? Does he also recognise that until the United Nations acts firmly and concertedly to stop the aggression there will not be an end to the sickening killing?
    Mr. Hurd: The difficulties of following that advice may be seen in Somalia today, and the situation in Somalia is
    972
    easy compared with the problems of Bosnia. That is why I repeat that no Government with whom we have been in contact—in fact, no Government at all—have proposed, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an international expeditionary force be sent to impose a solution to the civil war in Bosnia and then stay there to enforce that solution for one, two, five or 10 years. Many half-measures have been suggested, and we have analysed them.
    As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we have not managed to stop the fighting with the present policies. What we can do is provide a framework of ideas for a negotiated settlement, put economic and financial pressures on those stimulating the fighting—I mentioned that in relation to Croatia—and help to keep people alive.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not enough to say that the UN and this country will not condone the Croat and Serb invasions of parts of Bosnia? That cannot be done without making it clear that the only way to enforce any settlement is to ensure that there can be a degree of resettlement of the people who have been subject to ethnic cleansing. That will not be decided by a few words. There will be a need for an international force to ensure that resettlement can take place. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to take that up with the UN as soon—I hope that it will be soon—as some kind of settlement is agreed among the three parties?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. Once there is a negotiated settlement, which cannot be dictated by Serbs and Croats, the question of saving people and establishing them in new homes or their old homes arises immediately. There will have to be a big international effort. The Heads of Government said at their meeting in Tokyo that that cannot be undertaken at the dictate of Serbs and Croats. Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg are not seeking to press the Bosnia Muslims into accepting a particular settlement. They are saying that it is worth while from everybody's point of view that the discussions in Geneva should continue to see whether such a settlement can emerge based on one Bosnia, either a confederation or a federation.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Few people, apart from the right hon. Gentleman, are in any doubt that the outcome in Bosnia is being dictated by Serbian and Croatian aggression. All the evidence points to that inescapable conclusion, and the deplorable statement from Washington in May this year was almost an invitation to that end.
    Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped issuing threadbare threats of tougher measures which never emerge? The use of air power is never ruled out, but it is never ruled in. That is in stark contrast with Iraq, where the war is over but missiles have been used in furtherance of United Nations resolutions. The war is continuing in Bosnia, but no action, even limited action, is taken.
    There are options between the present position and the all-out expeditionary force to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but no action is being taken. The outcome is a deplorable defeat for the EC and for the United Nations.
    Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is a firm disciple of the "something must be done" school. I listened with growing bafflement to the rigmarole of the Leader of the

    973
    Opposition elaborating on this theme in answer to the Prime Minister on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman is rightly against lifting the arms embargo. He talks about air power, but I do not know what he means; it has never been spelt out. What does he think will be achieved? The position is clear: NATO and the Security Council have agreed that if UNPROFOR troops, and our troops, are attacked from the air, NATO can defend them. That is perfectly clear and has been made perfectly clear to everyone. The right hon. Gentleman must get out of the habit of supposing in a vague and unformulated way that the half-measures that he is advocating will produce results which could be produced only by something so drastic that not even he would propose it.

    Departmental Personnel
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of personnel in post on Foreign and Commonwealth Office duties (a) abroad and (b) in the United Kingdom; at what cost; what were the corresponding figures five, 10 and 15 years ago in numbers and cost in real terms; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The total diplomatic wing United Kingdom-based establishment of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is currently 6,648, of which 4,048 are serving at home and 2,600 overseas. The corresponding figures in earlier years were 6,578 in 1988–89, of which 3,775 were serving at home and 2,793 overseas, 6,763 in 1983 and 7,275 in 1978. A breakdown of personnel between home and overseas in 1978 and 1983 is not available.
    The estimated pay bill for 1993–94 is £265 million. The equivalent figure on the same price base for 1988–89 was £257 million and for 1983–84 £251 million. A comparable figure for 1978–79 is not available.
    These figures should be seen against the background of increasing demands on the diplomatic wing. We continue to exercise rigorous control over United Kingdom-based staff numbers at home and overseas.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply—[Interruption.] For all the hilarity in the House, I am sure that we are grateful to all members of staff in embassies and consulates around the world for the excellent work that they do for our country. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the number of staff in post in the foreign service is diminishing rather than increasing at a time when more are needed because the world situation is so much more complex with the break-up of countries into much smaller units? Will he convey the support of the House to the Treasury and say that we want more people in post and properly supported because that is the only way in which this country's influence can be sustained and improved and in which trade can be improved?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The Government will ensure that the level of staffing in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is equal to the tasks laid on us.
    Ms Coffey: Has the Minister received any more information from Foreign Office staff in Turkey about the possible release date for my constituent David
    974
    Rowbottom and his partner who are being held by the PKK? Can he give the families any assurances because, as he will appreciate, they are extremely worried?
    Mr. Goodlad: I will write to the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Wilkinson: What evidence is there that, as we supposedly proceed towards ever-closer union in Europe, there will be an ever-diminishing number of Foreign and Commonwealth diplomats stationed in European Community countries? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will be no diminution of posts, but rather the opposite, in the real growth areas in the world where significant economic advances are being made and where opportunities really exist for British business, such as the Pacific basin and south America?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We shall have people where they are needed.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is there any chance that Foreign Office Ministers might drop the supercilious veneer that they deploy in circumstances in which the most trivial and most serious issues are still at stake?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House and with the country about what the consequences will be if the Treasury gets its way with regard to the cuts in our diplomatic representation overseas and, especially, the cuts in the British Council and in the BBC World Service? Why will Ministers not speak out about the permanent—perhaps irreparable—damage that will be done to institutions such as the BBC World Service, which is respected across the planet, which almost every day speaks with authority and balance to some 146 million people, and which may well face budget cuts of about £13 million next year? Surely it is the duty of the Foreign Office to come out from behind the diplomatic language and fight for its corner and for the country.
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman is extremely eloquent in dreaming up ghosts at which to start. I can assure him that we will ensure that the resources provided are equal to the tasks laid upon us.
    Mr. Allason: Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues exercise a little less reticence in attacking ill-informed press criticism of Foreign Office expenditure overseas? Will he confirm that the appointment of the Governor of Bermuda, for example, costs the British taxpayer nothing and that the Government of Bermuda meets the bill in full? Why was it left to the Governor of Bermuda, and not Foreign Office Ministers, to draw attention to the crass criticism in The Mail on Sunday and The Times, among other newspapers?
    Mr. Goodlad: If I were to occupy myself dealing with crass criticism by newspapers I should not have time for anything else. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Governor of Bermuda costs the British taxpayer nothing, as he is paid for by Bermuda. The Premier of Bermuda is in this country today and is very welcome here.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of United Kingdom relations with Sierra Leone.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are hopeful that our relations will improve.
    Mr. Jones: I hope that our relations will improve sufficiently to enable the United Kingdom Government to ask the Sierra Leone Government to honour pension commitments that are still outstanding after, in some cases, 40 years. I refer to United Kingdom citizens who are ex-employees of the Colonial Office, having worked in educational establishments in Sierra Leone. If there is no improvement, will the United Kingdom Government pay the pensions of those people at long last?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly look into the question of our representations to the Sierra Leone Government about the pensions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that we have many issues outstanding with the Sierra Leone Government. We were very distressed by their conduct last year, and we are seeking, by persuasion, to bring about an improvement in the political situation there, in so far as we can influence it.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed Bosnia with his European counterparts.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend did so at the Copenhagen meeting of the European Council on 21 and 22 June and, again, in the margins of the Tokyo summit held between 7 and 9 July.
    Mr. Alton: In the absence of European troops in Bosnia and of the political will to commit them, can the Minister say what we shall do when the members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference appeal to the United Nations to commit up to 18,000 troops there? Given our own indifference to the plight of people who have been masscared in Bosnia, to the mutilation of that country, and to its right to self-determination and sovereignty, and even though we have failed to commit troops for the purpose of saving people there, we should say that we will not oppose the placing of Islamic troops to defend the interests of Muslims, who continue to be massacred.
    Mr. Hogg: I have heard some pretty silly questions in this place, but that is one of the silliest. All hon. Members, with the possible exception of the hon. Gentleman, know that we now have 2,400 troops in Bosnia. In addition, there are very substantial French and other European formations. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in consultation with our European partners, there is scope to seek to deter aggression in Bosnia if we can take forward the process of bringing to justice those who are guilty of crimes against humanity? In that regard, does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it will be possible to name names so that we can deter those who have gone in for ethnic cleansing and other horrors?
    Mr. Hogg: The Security Council has made it plain that there should be an ad hoc Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. I agree with that. What is even more important, however, is that we get the parties to the fighting to start negotiating.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister really believe that Serbian expansionism will stop when Bosnia vanishes from the map? It is well known that the Serbians will extend their aggression to other areas in the Balkans once they have finished with Bosnia-Herzegovina.
    The Secretary of State has outlined the difficulties and dangers involved in supporting the use of United Nations troops in Bosnia. Does the Minister accept, however, that the same doubts and difficulties existed at the time of the Kuwait-Iraq war? The Secretary of State supported intervention then. What is the difference between Iraq and Bosnia? Is it Arab oil?
    Mr. Hogg: Two questions are rolled up in that question. As to Bosnia, it is our determination that there shall continue to be a state of Bosnia. We are seeking to carry forward negotiations whereby the three warring factions can live in peace within the existing frontiers of Bosnia. Whether that is a confederal or federal solution is a matter for the parties involved. That we hope and intend to see a state of Bosnia in future is clear and beyond doubt.
    The hon. Gentleman's second question was broadly whether the situation in former Yugoslavia is the same as that in the Gulf. The answer is no. There are remarkable differences. To start with, what we are seeing in Bosnia and indeed throughout much of former Yugoslavia is, in essence, a civil war. What we saw in the Gulf was a clear attack on one sovereign state by another. Moreover, in the Gulf war it was easy to define one's political objective, which was the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. In Bosnia, what one is seeking to achieve is political negotiation and then a settlement through discussion.
    Mr. Churchill: Is it not a cruel and cynical betrayal of the Bosnian Muslims that the United Nations should send in a United Nations protection force with no mandate to protect and should declare safe havens that it has no intention to make safe? For how much longer will the United Nations and Her Majesty's Government maintain a position whereby we deny the victims of aggression any outside assistance and refuse to let them have access to the means of self-defence when we know that the other side—the Serbs—started the conflict with more than 10 times as much ammunition and hardware?
    Mr. Hogg: We need to be clear about this. The United Nations is neither more nor less than its member states. Therefore, the essential question is whether the member states—in particular, the United Kingdom—are prepared to put combat troops into Bosnia to wage war. If the answer is no—and that, indeed, is the answer—people must not encourage the Bosnian Muslims to suppose something different.

    Kenya (Press Harassment)
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's representations concerning harassment of the press in Kenya.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have repeatedly stressed at the highest levels of the Kenyan Government the importance of a free press.
    Sir David Steel: The Minister knows from my question on Monday that I am particularly concerned about the case of Fotoform publishers, in which we have a particular

    977
    locus because its managing director is a British citizen. Is he aware that since its presses, which I visited in May, were raided and forced to close, three of the company's publications—Society, Finance and Law Monthly—have been suspended? That is direct harassment of the press. My latest information is that the judgment that should have been delivered yesterday was not forthcoming and that the case is still continuing. Such suppression of the press is outrageous and we have a particular duty to make repeated condemnation of it.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am, of course, aware of that case and of the right hon. Gentleman's interest in it. We exchanged words about it on Monday. He will know that we take a strong line about it. I am extremely disappointed that the case was adjourned yesterday. We believe that the legal proceedings should be concluded as soon as possible.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Kenyan Government and other Governments that economic assistance from this country depends on those Governments adhering to basic principles of human and political rights?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. As my hon. Friend is aware, the elections in Kenya were, ultimately, conducted successfully, even though in the run-up to them there was cause for concern. The Government and the International Monetary Fund have made it clear to the Kenyan Government that further balance of payments support depends on their complying with a shadow programme that they have negotiated with the IMF.

    Israel (EC Application)
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with Israel's application for associate member status with the EC.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The 1975 co-operation agreement provides the present basis of the relationship between the EC and Israel. In 1992, the EC and Israel agreed to examine how those arrangements might be updated. The Commission has had exploratory talks with Israel and will soon propose a draft negotiating mandate to the Council.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister believe that the economic regeneration of that region is the surest way to achieve stability and lasting peace? If so, will he actively promote—not merely support—Israel's application for associate membership of the EC? Will he further consider the active promotion of Israel's application to join the "Western European and Others" group of the United Nations?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am cautious about using the term "association agreement" because it might imply that EC membership is in prospect when at present it is not. I agree that it is a matter of mutual interest to develop trade relations and better political dialogue.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel's application for associate-only status would be considerably reinforced if the British Government would put pressure on the Arab countries to remove their boycott, which harms Israel's economic performance? If Israel now has the imagination to reach genuine and lasting peace with the Palestinians in the present negotiations, the great
    978
    prize of the near east common market will be available, including maximum support from the European Community.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I confirm to my hon. Friend that we deplore the Arab boycott of Israel.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that, if it is reasonable for Israel to seek closer relationships with the European Community, it is reasonable for the international and European communities to seek from Israel reasonable standards of conduct of the sort expected of other countries? That includes ending the economic strangulation of the west bank and Gaza strip, respecting the rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories, and abiding by international resolutions such as ending the illegal occupation of the west bank and Gaza strip and the illegal annexation of east Jerusalem.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly made it clear that the Israeli defence forces must respect human rights in the occupied territories. We deplore all violence of that nature as well as terrorist activities against Israeli citizens.

    Middle East
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the peace process in the middle east; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The 10th round of bilateral negotiations adjourned in Washington on 1 July. The Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have reached an important moment. Both sides now face the decision whether to engage in detailed negotiations about interim arrangements in the occupied territories. We think that they should.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present agreeable climate in the peace process would be better promoted by a constructive dialogue with the newly pragmatic Palestine Liberation Organisation rather than allowing Hammas and fundamentalist groups in the region to continue to pose a dangerous threat to the whole of the middle east?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that Hammas poses a threat to the middle east in general and to the peace talks in particular. That is why it is extremely important that urgent progress should be made in the peace negotiations now under way.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister agree that the middle east talks are threatened by a three-and-a-half month closure of Gaza which, after 26 years of occupation, does not have the finance to sustain itself and in some cases lacks the basic infrastructure for water, sewerage and a financial system? Does he also agree that, while Israel has a right to legitimate security rightly, as an occupying power it also has a duty to look after the interests of the occupied population? If the Israelis will not help the Gazans, will the Government do something through the EC to help them?
    Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that if we are to see progress in the talks it is important that the Palestinians and the Israeli people see that positive advantages are to be gained

    979
    from those talks. Therefore, I say to the Government of Israel that they must lift the weight of the occupation—there are various ways in which to do that—and I say to the Palestinians that they must stop the violence.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the process of peace negotiations in the middle east depends crucially on the brokering by the United States of a settlement? Will my right hon. and learned Friend put pressure on the United States Government to encourage Israel to bring the future of Jerusalem into the negotiations in a constructive manner?
    Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree that the role of the United States is critical to a successful outcome of the negotiations. We, the United Kingdom Government, will do what we can to support the process, but our agenda is not separate from that of the United States. The negotiators must hurry, as it is always possible that; if there is no progress the enthusiasm of the United States to remain involved may diminish. I think it is prudent to leave the issue of Jerusalem until last.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I wish to raise with you, Madam Speaker, a point of order of which I gave you notice: the apparent conflict between the rulings that you gave yesterday and that Mr. Speaker Weatherill gave some time ago on Standing Order No. 20 and its terms.
In exchanges yesterday, you said:
"The matter in question must be urgent, and it must relate to new developments, such as a change of policy."—[Official Report, 13 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 834.]
Standing Order No. 20 states:
"On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday a Member rising in his place at the commencement of public business may propose, in an application lasting not more than three minutes, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration."
I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the ruling that you gave yesterday, which was initially given by Mr. Speaker Weatherill, does not give that permissive right to hon. Members to move an application for Standing Order No. 20. If your ruling is accepted—I have no reason to think that it is not—it requires amendment of Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I should like advice from you on how such an amendment can be secured, because, unless an amendment is made, it seems that Standing Order No. 20 is in direct conflict with the ruling that you made yesterday and that made by Mr. Speaker Weatherill some years ago.
Mr. David Winnick: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful for your letter, and I wish to raise a point of order arising from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Many of us can recall when hon. Members, whether the occupants of the Chair liked it or not, stated at your office that they were going to make an application and, as far as I can recall—the Clerks will no doubt advise if this is wrong—there were no restrictions.
During the 1974–79 period, Conservative Members, when in opposition, used to make four or five applications each day. No doubt on each occasion the Members involved took the view that they stood no chance of succeeding, but there were no restrictions on them trying.
I accept entirely that it was not you, Madam Speaker, but your predecessor who made it more difficult to make applications. However, with all due respect, I wish to ask you when that change was made and what opportunity the House was given to decide, on a vote, whether that should be the case. Undoubtedly, there has been a change, and it is now far more difficult to get permission to move an application under Standing Order No. 20. The matter should be put to the House and a vote taken accordingly.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is an ironic side to this whole episode in connection with Speaker Weatherill. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that, in 1974–79, when a Labour Government were in office, we had to put up with four or five applications a day for SO9s, as they were then called, from Tory Members. The deputy Chief Whip of the Tory party at that time was none other than the man who was later to become Speaker Weatherill, and he organised the SO9s.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it the same point?
Mr. Canavan: No.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I shall respond to the point of order. I am not able to relax the practice of the Chair in this matter. Contrary to what some hon. Members said yesterday, that practice has been applied consistently for several years. If I relaxed the practice, the House would be exposed to a spate of three-minute applications which had no possibility of success because they bore no relation to the criteria that I have to apply.
Those criteria are that the matter must be specific, important and urgent, and must be matter for which a Minister has responsibility. Of course, I shall continue to offer constructive suggestions to hon. Members who make Standing Order No. 20 applications so that they might pursue the matter, which I quite understand concerns them, in some other way.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have said, there was a spate of applications in 1975. By what alchemy, at what point and when was the change made? Who decided it? On reflection, some of us think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right, and that this has all been done by the powers that be since television has been brought in. What it is all about is television at prime time. The question is succinct: how and at what moment was the change made and by whom, and was it made with the authority of the House?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was a Member at that time. If he and all of us reflect, we will remember that, in the period 1978–79, which hon. Members are recalling there was a spate of urgent issues. We all have long enough memories to understand what they were. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know about the urgency requirement in a Standing Order No. 20 application, he will find that it is there for him to read. If the House wishes to change our procedures or the Standing Order, which is quite specific, there are ways and means, as the hon. Gentleman knows, for him to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must take other points of order. I have dealt with the previous one. Some hon. Members are taking up the time of the House on a day that is crucial to other hon. Members.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is different from the last one. One of your many onerous duties is to chair the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland. The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 states quite clearly that, in making recommendations about the drawing up of parliamentary constituency boundaries, the commission must have regard to local government area boundaries.
Traditionally in Scotland, local government area boundaries have been determined after very careful consideration and, in many cases, after public consultation by the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. Major restructuring involving the creation of

983
new authorities or the abolition of existing ones, has usually been done after careful consideration by some form of independent commission.
However, for the proposals that will be before the House this afternoon, that has not been done. There have been accusations of gerrymandering, and it would put you, Madam Speaker, in an invidious position if the work of your commission, the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland, were prejudiced in any way by the implementation of the gerrymandered local government proposals that will be before the House today.
Will you use your position as Chair of the Scottish Parliamentary Boundary Commission and your good offices to try to bring about some kind of independent commission to study this matter carefully and see that the proposals that will be before the House today are scrapped, or at least shelved until the whole matter of Scottish local government is given the fullest possible consideration by an independent commission chaired by somebody who is neutral and fair-minded, such as your good self?
Madam Speaker: These are still only proposals. The hon. Gentleman has made some interesting points which are better raised in the debate, which, if we ever reach it, will be shortly. He should put his concerns to the Minister at that time.
Mr. John McAllion: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to the amendment tabled today in the name of the Prime Minister, which relates to the debate that we are about to have on Scottish local government? It refers to the Government's White Paper, which contains proposals to set up
"a single tier of strong and acceptable all-purpose authorities."
If you read the Government's White Paper, you will find that they are proposing to remove water, police and fire services from those single-tier authorities. Therefore, the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister is misleading and inaccurate, and on that basis will you rule it out of order?
Madam Speaker: As soon as we start the debate, I will give my ruling on the amendment, but we are not in the debate yet.
Mr. Derek Enright: You will recall, Madam Speaker that, some time ago at Question Time, I said to the Minister for Energy that the President of the Board of Trade had dipped his hand in the till of the miners' pensions. The Minister, in the House, vehemently denied that, but in this morning's paper it was admitted that Ministers had urged British Coal to raid the pension funds.
984
Has the Minister for Energy offered to come to the House to make an apology—
Madam Speaker: Order. What appears in newspapers has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair of the House. All 650 Members could bring in their newspapers and ask me whether I thought they were correct. It is a terrible abuse of the time of the House.
Mr. Enright: It is the court reporter.
Madam Speaker: I do not give a—[Laughter.] I do not care whether it is the court reporter or the most junior reporter on my local paper; it is not an issue for the Chair or for the House.
I had a point f order yesterday from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to which I wish to reply. The hon. Gentleman raised with me the effect of article 21 of the Act of Union on the implementation of the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation in Scotland. As the House is aware, I rule on the orderliness of the business before the House and not on hypothetical questions. I am satisfied that the motion before the House today is perfectly in order. Consideration of the orderliness of a future Local Government (Scotland) Bill will have to wait until the text of the Bill is available and I have been able to see it.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Your ruling is slightly ambiguous. Scottish Members would like to know whether the determination of Scottish local authority boundaries and structure and the future of water supplies will be dictated by the votes of English Members of Parliament in the House, regardless of and notwithstanding the Act of Union.
I thank you for your consideration of the matter, but you will appreciate its importance. If the conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament dictate that English Conservative Members, many rolling in from the liquid dungeons of this place at the end of the day, dictate that—
Madam Speaker: Order. I patiently listened to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. He put it to me clearly, and I took some time in considering it. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and we all determine together what happens in the various parts of this nation.
Mr. Salmond: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further point of order. I carefully considered the hon. Gentleman's point of order yesterday. I have gone into it thoroughly, and I answered it today by saying that this is a United Kingdom Parliament and every one of us is entitled to make a decision on what comes before the House.

Women into Parliament
3.44 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts with a view to increasing the number of women elected to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
By great good fortune, and with the co-operation of the people who arrange ten-minute Bills, today is the birthday of Emmeline Pankhurst—and this year marks the 75th anniversary of women's suffrage. A group of women Members of Parliament from all parties have got together to commemorate those great events to stage an exhibition in the House called "Women into Politics"—which you, Madam Speaker, graciously opened on Monday.
Today, Lady Thatcher, our first woman Prime Minister, unveiled a plaque to suffragettes in St. Stephen's hall. It is the first time that suffragettes have been commemorated in the House.
Since 1918, only 163 women have been elected to Parliament, compared with 3,986 men. Almost half that number of women were in Parliament for only one Session, because they were given marginal seats to fight or were elected at by-elections, and therefore did not spend more than a couple of years here.
Perhaps it is not surprising that there have only been 10 women Cabinet members, while 388 men have served in the Cabinets. One fifth of all women Cabinet Ministers are in office today, and there are still 17 Government Departments without a woman politician, or which have never had a woman politician in them. Women have a view on every subject. How can their views be reflected in legislation if they are not in the room when key decisions about legislation are made?
Things are getting a little better. At the last general election, 60 women were elected—the largest number ever—but they still account for less than 10 per cent. of the membership of the House. It is not true that women do not come forward as candidates. It is just much harder for them to be adopted for safe seats. You, Madam Speaker, tried for 16 years before being elected, and many of us got here almost by a lucky fluke.
Throughout the history of our democracy, women have had to battle for recognition. Until recently, they did not have property rights or the right to their earnings if they were married, and had to fight for a university education and to be accepted into the professions. The suffragettes were not militant feminists, but Christian women who believed that democracy was part of the Christian message, which taught that women were equal to men.
Parliament is still very much a man's world. If women are to make a contribution in their own style, men must accept the need for structures to change. In my time as a Member of Parliament, the need for changing working conditions has been debated but nothing has come of it.
Even the few women who made it to the House have effected profound changes in respect of care of the elderly, children, maternity services and health. Such topics were not considered suitable topics for Parliament to debate before women arrived. They were laughed at or thought too embarrassing to discuss. Women such as Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister, Eleanor Rathbone, Irene Ward, Megan Lloyd-George and Barbara Castle battled to make this a more caring country.
986
In the past, Parliament met to raise money to fight the king's wars. Today it meets to raise taxes that are mainly spent on social services and social structures. Those areas are second nature to women because of their upbringing and experience, and ones in which they can make a key contribution to the deliberations of the House.
Historically, Parliament has always been refreshed by the injection of people from different backgrounds. It was once dominated by merchants and landowners. Now, small business men and trade unionists take their place here. Surely now is the time for that trust to extend to the inclusion of far more women in our deliberations. There needs to be a critical mass of women for the priorities in this place to change.
Parliament is broadened by the insights and energies of these newcomers. No one is detracting from existing Members, or the contributions made by men, but stating that women have a key economic role to play, not just outside but inside this building. It is time for us to encourage more women into the House.
Women have all the qualities necessary to be Members of Parliament—not that those qualities are exceptional—and we will know that women have really reached their place in our political community when they are allowed to be as mediocre as some of the men who occupy these Benches.
There is not a level playing field between men and women when it comes to selection for parliamentary seats. If there were, there would be no need for my Bill. Different parties address the matter in different ways. Some parties consider the possibility of quotas, others proportional representation, and still others may—like Bernard Shaw—recommend a coupled vote.
A Parliament with more women would be more equitable, and would more fairly reflect the changes that have taken place in society, particularly in the lives and status of women. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the principles that I have outlined in my Bill, and I commend it to the House.
3.51 pm
Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is with some diffidence that I oppose the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
I sympathise with much of what my hon. Friend and her supporters seek to achieve, but I disagree fundamentally with the method that they have chosen to achieve those objectives—that of tinkering with our present electoral system, which is epitomised in the Representation of the People Acts.
One of the greatest strengths of our democratic system is the single-member constituency. I have always opposed any suggestion of introducing proportional representation. It would divide the electorate, so that, for example, Conservative voters would approach a Conservative Member of Parliament to deal with their problems, socialist voters would approach a socialist Member of Parliament and Liberal voters would approach a Liberal Member of Parliament.
A secondary result would be that even more power would be put in the hands of the party hierarchy over the selection of candidates, and that centre of decision-making would be taken away from where it should rightly be, at grass-roots level in the constituencies. The people who live

987
in an area should have the freedom to choose an individual to represent them, whether that individual be male or female.
Our existing arrangements for electoral representation have worked well, and have not debarred women from coming forward as candidates. Women Members have made a considerable contribution to the House, to the political life of the country and to society as a whole. With you in the Chair, Madam Speaker, hon. Members are continually reminded that it is possible for women to achieve the highest and most influential of offices, and to fulfil the ensuing responsibilities with great distinction.
I remind the House that the Head of State and the head of the established Church in this country is a woman. Until relatively recently, we had our first woman Prime Minister, who was outstanding in terms of both leadership and intellect. Currently, two members of the Cabinet are women, seven members of the Government are women and 59 right hon. and hon. Members are women. The leaders of countless county borough and parish councils are women. The hard-working grass-roots majority of the membership, certainly of the Conservative party, are women.
If we consider the gradual manner in which our parliamentary democracy came into being over a period of centuries and the way in which the franchise was extended from a limited number to include all adults, we see that the speed with which women have, in the last few decades, alone, seized the initiative is truly remarkable. The enthusiasm of my hon. Friend further to hasten this process by any form of positive discrimination should not be allowed to undermine the progress which has been made, or to alter the Representation of the People Acts, which are one of the foundation stones upon which our system of free elections is based.
I support 100 per cent. any attempt to encourage more women Members into this House of Commons, but I completely oppose any attempt to change the rules, to fiddle the rules, to enable them so to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mrs. Ray Michie.

WOMEN INTO PARLIAMENT
Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the Peoples Acts with a view to increasing the number of women elected to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 July, and to be printed. [Bill 238.]
Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

  Local Government and Water (Scotland)
  Madam Speaker: I have looked at the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. It is perfectly in order and has been selected for debate.
  May I make a plea at this stage for short speeches? There are a great many Members in all parts of the House who wish to speak in the debate.
  3.56 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the publication of the White Paper `Shaping the Future-The New Councils'; considers that these proposals have been brought forward without adequate consultation, and represent costly and unnecessary changes not sustained by general support for their introduction; condemns the blatant manipulation of boundaries for narrow party interests, consistent with an approach to the governance of Britain which centralises power and disregards the basic consensus necessary to a healthy democracy; welcomes the success of the public campaign against outright privatisation of water, but notes the continuing threat to the future of these services posed by the proposals in the White Paper to remove them from local authority control; and demands that Her Majesty's Government withdraws the White Paper, establishes an independent Commission to review the whole question of local government in Scotland, retains water and sewerage in local authority control, and makes proper provision for adequate investment in these services.
  I ought to say that we intend to oppose the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
  There is a widespread belief that Scotland is usually the first to be at the receiving end of this Government's most damaging initiatives. That is certainly true of the discredited poll tax and the discredited Ministers who supported it, but the Secretary of State for Scotland can make no plea of mitigation in respect of local government and water privatisation. He already knows of the disasters that followed that elsewhere in the United Kingdom. He also knows now that Scotland is at the end of the queue.
  What the Secretary of State announced last Thursday was not the product of original thought on his part. His announcement consisted of two proposals: to rearrange the map of Scottish local government to the advantage of his party, and to move a step closer to the selling of Scottish water. Both proposals have already been visited on other parts of the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland, having seen the so-called future, in Tory eyes, know that it does not work.
  The fact is that the Government have one overriding conviction, and have adopted it in Scotland as well: if they cannot win elections, abolish them—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), must know that they won 11 out of 72 seats in Scotland and that they have a mere 16 per cent. of support, according to the opinion polls, among the people of Scotland—hardly a mandate to do anything in Scotland, far less to impose this nonsense upon us.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: I shall give way in a moment.
  We saw their solution to the problems that democracy poses. The Greater London council, the metropolitan counties and the Inner London education authority caused problems for the Tories and were abolished. Scotland has now been presented with the same sort of treatment.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to 11 Tory Members from Scotland. How many Scottish seats did he forecast the Tory party would get before the general election? Will he note that we achieved 25 per cent. of the vote at the general election?
  Mr. Clarke: One thing that I will forecast is that, even with the gerrymandering, the Tories will not get in next time. They know that they cannot win Strathclyde, Lothian, Central or Fife, they suffered humiliating losses in Tayside, Grampian, Dumfries and Galloway and they did not do all that well in the district elections.
  What is their answer? It is the same one as we have seen before—the London solution: sweep them away. They respond to the problem of voters who continue to elect Labour councils by creating safe havens for themselves. What is much worse is that they take away from councils as many powers and services as possible, reduce democratic accountability and prepare for sell-offs to the highest bidders.
  On water and sewerage, the House will know that there was not a hint in the Tory manifesto at the general election in Scotland of the Government's proposals on water privatisation, or a suggestion that water would be up for sale. Most people in Scotland—indeed, 98 per cent.—believe that water is a gift from God.
  Last Thursday, the Government stopped short—but not far short—of selling off water as a result of the Scottish people's influence and determination, not because there was a sudden change on the road to Damascus on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  A few days before the House returned after the summer recess last year, and at considerable expense to taxpayers, the Secretary of State launched a glossy document in Glasgow. The document was full of marks, photographs and nice graphics, and even contained an explanation of why it rains in Scotland. Following that, a firm of consultants was commissioned, at a cost to the taxpayers of upwards of £100,000. It caused months of deep uncertainty among workers and consumers, and nearly 3,000 replies were received, of which only 1 per cent. favoured privatisation. All of that, for what?
  The document that we saw last week was not even a full page—it had a mere four paragraphs on water. However, it still managed to disguise the real thinking of the Secretary of State on the matter. Why did he not tell us that water and sewerage will be left in the hands of democratically elected local authorities?
  Those local authorities have 150 years of service in protecting the public in terms of health. They know about investment, and they know that they are entitled to protect God's gift to Scotland, as the Scottish people see it. The Government's determination to move in and profiteer is not welcomed either in Ayr or elsewhere.
  The Secretary of State said that the public ownership of three new water companies can be combined with a major role for the private sector in providing and financing much
  990
  of the essential and large capital investment programme that is needed over the next decade. Therefore, the private companies will be providers as well as providing finance.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us how that will work. What is the difference between the franchising option and what he suggested last Thursday? Nothing in the White Paper suggests that he has abandoned all hope of privatisation. We have seen a U-turn, but one that will last only to this side of the next election, as we saw in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has been less than honest in Scotland, so let us be clear that his paving Bill will be a major issue at the next general election in Scotland, and we will, of course, invite the Scottish people to decide.
  As with water, the Government cannot conceal how they see the role of local government. For the Labour party, that role is about democracy, it is about elected councillors, it is about serving the local community, it is about accountability, and it is about sustaining high standards of services. They are all noble ideals that were once accepted as a consensus by all political parties on behalf of the Scottish people.
  For the Government, in their miserable documents, that role is about centralisation, about competitive tendering and, in the end, about local councils organising meetings to award contracts to people who are not accountable to anybody.
  The Government issued another glossy document in the past year with a flourish of publicity, including the publication of a video that I understand was called "Lang—the Movie". Civil servants advised the Secretary of State, so in future Ministers may take more account of advice from elsewhere. We were told that "Lang—the Movie" cost £25,000—many will ask if the right hon. Gentleman's presentation was worth that amount. All that was missing was Scarlett O'Hara saying that the Scottish people could not give a damn about his proposals.
  That costly exercise offered the Scottish people options of 24 or 35 or 51 authorities. Did the Government respond to the replies? No, not really. They were not responding to people's replies to the various options. During that apology for a consultation exercise, the Government had their own ideas, and those ideas related not to what the people of Scotland wanted, and certainly not to an independent commission, but to a small minority view that coincides with what appear to be the interests of a small number of Tory Members.
  During that important consultation on the future of local government, Ministers have been both prosecutors and jury, while the people had no right of appeal.
  Sir David Steel: In support of the hon. Gentleman, he will remember the sentence in the White Paper that says:
  "The Government recognise the time and effort devoted to preparing these reponses, and have examined them with great care".
  The responses have been on public view in St. Andrew's house over the past week. There were 108 submissions in the Borders, which have been examined, and of those only three support the proposals advanced by the Government to take Berwickshire out of the Borders region. Not surprisingly, the three who support it are the Conservative group on Berwickshire district council, the Conservative group on Lothian regional council and a single Conservative councillor. Is that public consultation?
  Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House in exposing what amounts to a disgraceful exercise. I invite the Secretary of State to publish not only those documents to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred, but other documents that are relevant to our discussions.
  The Government claim that there is no evidence of gerrymandering, yet since Thursday—again I challenge the Secretary of State to deny this when he replies—not one independent commentator has been willing to say that the Government's exercise was not influenced by party political considerations alone.
  Arthur Midwinter, an academic expert so clearly regarded as non-partisan as to be invited to the Prime Minister's breakfast sitting and invited to give advice during the state visit in the past year, said:
  "Stirling, East Renfrewshire, Berwickshire and East Lothian represented Toytown councils."
  If I am mistaken about the influences on the Government, perhaps the Secretary of State, after his wide-ranging consultation, will tell us which serious commentator or advisory body, other than the Tory party, advised him to put Helensburgh into Argyll, to take Musselburgh out of East Lothian or to put Barrhead into Greater Eastwood. If he will do so, I am happy to give way.
  I am happy to give way to him if he can name a single independent body that supports the proposals. I am happy to give way even to his sidekick, the hon. Member for Eastwood, if he will tell us of any independent body that supported such a view. The fact is, as is clear from the silence, that nobody did, because nobody would support a proposal so reeking of political corruption and so consistent with party political advantage. I am still happy to give way.
  The House can reach only one conclusion—that the Secretary of State is the "Jim'll Fix It" of Scottish politics. He has fixed it for the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), he has fixed it for the hon. Member for Eastwood, and he thinks that he has fixed it for the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie). He certainly has not fixed it for the Scottish people, because they have fixed it for him. As someone else might have said at the Dispatch Box, never in the history of local government reform has so much been owed by so few to so few.
  Let us consider the carve-up of Renfrewshire. West Renfrewshire has three times the population of East Renfrewshire. No doubt Eastwood has a consideration in these matters, and no doubt we shall get an impartial explanation of how such a conclusion was reached. North Ayrshire includes Cumnock and Doon Valley in the south, and is more than three times as large as South Ayrshire. There is a farcical situation in the Lothians. West Lothian is physically separated from Midlothian, and Musselburgh and Prestonpans are thrown in for good measure. West Lothian is three times as large as Berwickshire and East Lothian.
  Are we to conclude that it is now official policy that three voters for a Labour council may be compared with one for a Tory council? That is hardly a model for a modern democracy. Stirling, the model toytown council, spent a year—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Eastwood is being so provocative, I shall spell it out again, especially as I have no wish to misquote Professor Midwinter.
  992
  Stirling, the model toytown council, spent a year selling everything in sight, no doubt on the advice of the hon. Member for Stirling. I have no doubt that the Government want to do the same to regional services. We are entitled to ask seriously, because the voters of Stirling regard the matter as serious, whether such a small council will begin to take responsibilities for education and social work.
  Twenty years ago, the Wheatley report said that an ideal size of council area for social work was 200,000 people. The Secretary of State has often said that the regions have achieved quality of service and identity with local communities. The same is true of education, in terms of economies of scale, delegation of management, direct accountability of staff to councillors and direct accountability of councillors to voters, which the Secretary of State has told us his proposals are all about. Those factors represent a successful recipe for the delivery of strategic services.
  The most important question before the House is whether the quality of services and their delivery will be met by the Government's proposals. In social work, what evidence is there to overturn Wheatley? Wheatley, after a long period of consideration and genuine consultation, produced an excellent report, not a sham report based on narrow political dogma.
  Where is the evidence that social work departments are better and stronger if they are smaller? Where is the evidence that they can provide the necessary services? Where is the evidence that the needs of the vulnerable who are suffering under the Government's so-called policy on community care will be met by the Government's proposals? Since we are dealing with people who have to work with much larger health boards—in terms of co-operation with community care—perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us more about how he expects the system to work.
  Since we are told that the Government are also willing to leave such important matters as education to local authorities, what guarantees are there that the people of Scotland will avoid the bitter experience of those in inner London? The Government argued that abolishing the Inner London education authority would cut costs—something that Tory Ministers repeatedly told us would work—and Ministers are telling us the same of our future in Scotland, but they must know that, in London, the opposite has happened. London boroughs, forced to duplicate central administration and to increase bureaucracy, have upped the number of managers by 67 per cent., which would blow the Government's costing to smithereens. Inner London boroughs were forced to duplicate specialist education services or to abandon them.
  Perhaps we shall hear evidence today of what will happen to youth work in Scotland, to adult education and to special needs, based on the inner London experience, which no Secretary of State worth his salt would wish to emulate. When so many young Scots are imperilled by unemployment and drug-related crimes, community education and youth work may be among the victims of the Government's ideological obsessions. That is another reason why the people of Scotland find the Government's proposals so unattrative.
  Last week, we had a short exchange in the House about transitional costs. I invite the Secretary of State to be more forthcoming today. We are told that, on the Government's estimate, the transitional cost would be about £200 million. Since, in response to my hon. Friend the Member

  993
  for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), he made it clear that that would have to be found from other elements of the Scottish Office budget, will he tell us which parts of that budget will be cut?
  Which services will lose £200 million to pay for the schemes? When the Treasury is clawing back every penny, threatening pensions and benefits, imposing a new tax on people heating their homes and so on, why does the Secretary of State feel that it is the right time to spend £200 million on such an exercise?
  All that unnecessary expenditure will not provide a single extra police officer on the beat, a single extra teacher in a school or a single extra home help for the most needy. There is nothing in the proposals that would save a single Tory seat. The Government are unashamedly offering us a two-tier system, but it is based on joint boards, on buying in services and on competitive tendering—a system in which the Secretary of State takes decisions and even makes appointments. Few Hon. Members understand how he can justify that on the basis of democracy.
  Only one of the many organisations providing services will be directly accountable to the community. When numerous submissions were made to the Secretary of State, why did he disregard the importance of accountability? Was not that the strong view of the local community councils, of the elected councils, at district, regional and island level? Was not that the strong view of virtually all the voluntary organisations in Scotland, which see the need for positive local government and for co-ordinating activity locally and nationally?
  The fact is that the Government are seeking to impose on the people of Scotland without adequate examination or independent assessment a system of government which, as we have seen in the gerrymandering of the proposals for Stirling, Eastwood, Lothian, and even Aberdeen, could have been thought up only by narrow-minded people in Conservative central office. That is not a recipe for success for the future of democracy or local government in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State may not wish to be reminded of this, but it was Wheatley himself, who had more experience in these matters than the whole Tory Front Bench put together, who defined local democracy as
  "to ensure that the effective power of decision in local matters rests on an elected council directly accountable to the electorate for the exercise of that power."
  How can we have that measure of direct accountability over education, the police and the fire service in Strathclyde, not to speak of the assessor's role? How can we have that measure of accountability when sprinkled throughout the document is the Secretary of State's determination to take upon himself even more powers, especially in relation to joint planning, than those he has now?
  The Government's proposals are not about reforming local government, but about enfeebling it. It is about the betrayal of Scotland, yes, and Conservative promises to listen to the Scottish people. Above all, the latest in a series of cynical manoeuvres by which the Conservative party has overridden the wishes of local people expressed through the ballot box is the Government's response of removing the ballot box itself.
  This is a foolish and dangerous course to follow. I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind if I refer to my
  994
  local government experience. There are many who have contributed to local government and who in a democracy are entitled to expect their views to be heard. Democracy depends on consent. Consent depends on those in power playing by the rules. By changing the rules to suit itself, the Conservative party is putting democracy itself at risk. That is the reason why we have tabled this motion today.
  I call upon the Government today, knowing that we carry the overwhelming support of the Scottish people—
  Mr. Graham Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way—to recognise the importance of Scotland's deep commitment to these democratic principles and to withdraw their proposals.
  Mr. Riddick rose—
  Mr. Clarke: If they will not do so, I call upon the people of Scotland to resist and oppose them in every way and to stop them in every way possible. In that, they can be assured that they can depend on the support of the Labour party, and in due course of a Scottish Parliament—which the right hon. Gentleman's absurd proposals, happily, have made even more inevitable.
  4.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the motion, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future-The New Councils"; and considers that its proposals will lead to better and more efficient local government in Scotland, based on a single tier of strong and accountable all-purpose authorities.'.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) back to Parliament—safe back from his little jaunt to Downing street. Last Thursday, he quoted what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653:
  "In the name of God, go!"—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 35.]
  I thought that it was singularly inapt, but when he picked up his papers and left the Chamber I realised that he was talking to himself. It is a pity that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not at home. He is back from Tokyo now, if the hon. Gentleman would like to go again. Certainly the cameras were there in plenty. Indeed, the cameras were everywhere.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman now.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State appears not to be giving way. Is that correct?
  Mr. Lang: That is correct.
  One of my hon. Friends at the St. Stephen's entrance was greeted by a cameraman asking, "Is this the entrance for the spontaneous Labour walk-out?" When the hon. Member for Monklands, West got to Downing street, he had his photograph taken with the policeman on the door, just as Harold Wilson once did when he was a boy. When Harold Wilson grew up, he went into politics, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should do the same.
  Mr. Clarke rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman has his troubles at present. After all, we have it on the authority of the Daily Express in an article of 14 June headed, "Labour enemy within". It says:
  "Militant is on the march again. When Labour's shadow Scottish Secretary, Tom Clarke, turned up to canvas support during the Easterhouse council by-election, he was cheered to the rafters."
  It turned out that it was thought that the right hon. Member was the comedian, Andy Cameron. When it turned out to be the comedian, Tom Clarke, the article said:
  "Their tears turned to unprintable forms of welcome."
  All the comings and goings of the hon. Gentleman remind me of the doggerel by Mr. Hughes Mearns:
  "As I was going up the stair
  I met a man who wasn't there.
  He wasn't there again to-day.
  I wish, I wish he'd stay away."
  Judging by the hon. Gentleman's speech today, he was not there again today.
  I am glad that we have this early opportunity for a debate, but it is a pity that the Opposition thought that it was only worth half a day of debate. [Interruption.] It takes half a day to read the motion, which is perhaps why Opposition Members have not bothered to read it.
  The motion talks about inadequate consultation. The hon. Member for Monklands, West tried to make much of that. I remind the House that we have had no fewer than four consultation papers over the past two years on different aspects of local government reform. We have had nearly 9,000 replies, some of them immensely thorough and detailed, and we have looked at them carefully. In addition, there have been many newspaper and media articles and surveys.
  If one doubted the need for single-tier local government and the advantages of it, and the confusion and difficulty that arises from the two-tier structure, one need look no further than the ICM poll in The Scotsman of 9 March. It revealed that one quarter of Scots did not know that cleansing was a district council responsibilty; one third of Scots did not know that housing was a district council responsibility; and no fewer than 40 per cent.—getting on for half the population—did not realise that education, the biggest single local authority service, is a regional authority.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Perhaps he will now answer the question that he did not answer last week about how he arrived at the conclusion that Westhill should be incorporated into the city of Aberdeen. Since then, there has been outrage in the daily newspapers in Aberdeen—and from many Tory councilors—that he is gerrymandering. Westhill does not want to be part of Aberdeen. Is not that typical of the way in which he has totally ignored the views of ordinary people in every part of Scotland?
  Mr. Lang: If the outrage is coming from Tory councillors, I am not quite sure how I can be accused of gerrymandering. The fact is that there are many proposals on aspects of local government reform for which there is support and opposition in different parts of Scotland. We shall have ample opportunity to debate all of those during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, and the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to make his point.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State care to comment on the remarks made by one of his Scottish Tory colleagues, Mr. Brian Meek, a former distinguished Tory group leader on Lothian regional council? Writing in The Herald on Monday of this week, he said:
  "So let us go on to the gerrymandering argument. Did Mr. Lang and his Ministers seek to give their party the best possible chance under the new set-up? Of course they did. Why shouldn't they?"
  Is that not a remarkable confession of guilt by one of the Secretary of State's own party colleagues?
  Mr. Lang: It is not for me to decide whether the correspondent of The Herald, Mr. Meek, is confessing to guilt of anything. He is answerable for what he says in his columns. I am answerable for what I propose to the House.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
  Mr. Lang: No, I must make a little more progress. As for the popularity of single-tier local government, the System 3 poll in The Herald showed support for single-tier up from 37 to 46 per cent., substantially the most popular option of those addressed.
  The Labour party's contribution to the debate during the consultation period was almost zero. It is the party of scaremongers and has made no constructive contribution to the debate. We have had nothing but talk of hidden agendas. It was said that we would create a national police force, but our paper today demonstrates that to be wrong. Not only will there be no national police force, but there will be the same number of police forces as before.
  The Labour party said that we would privatise water and sewerage—wrong again. We have established three public water authorities firmly in public ownership, maximising the efficiency gains to be had in the delivery of water and sewerage and benefiting from private sector funds for investment.
  The Labour party said that there would he massive spending cuts—wrong again. Local authority spending will continue to rise. Private sector investment in water and sewerage will relieve pressure on our resources by billions of pounds.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: The Secretary of State says that this is a single-tier system. Will he explain to the ordinary person in the street how his water, sewerage, education, police and fire services will be run in a single-tier system?
  Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman listens to my speech and subsequently takes part in the debate on the Bill as it goes through Parliament, all those questions will be answered. At the moment, I am dealing with all the scares and alarms raised by the Labour party in the past few months. Labour Members should be hanging their heads in shame at the sort of things they have said to cause scare, alarm and anxiety among the Scottish people.
  Labour Members talked of a massive increase in joint boards. We had it again from the hon. Member for Monklands, West today. The fact is that the only major services that will be subject to joint boards will be the police and fire services, as at present. They talked about huge centralisation. Again, we had it today from the hon. Gentleman. Again, that is not so. All the major services, with the exception of water and sewerage, which we had clearly flagged as being subject to unavoidable alternative

  997
  arrangements, will stay with local authorities. The greater integration of services and the decentralisation from the regional level to the single-tier, all-purpose authorities will, in many cases, be the reverse of the centralisation that was proposed.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not.
  Then there was the scare of the great Treasury veto. In The Herald on 3 September the hon. Member for Monklands, West said:
  "The Scottish Secretary, Ian Lang, will not be able to deliver the changes because of a Treasury veto."
  That was around the time that he came forward with three successive forecasts of extra costs ranging from £400 million to £500 million to £600 million—wrong, wrong and wrong. There has been no Treasury veto and no extra costs. Rather, there will be savings of up to £1 billion over 15 years.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Secretary of State intend to transfer all existing water services to the new water boards, or does he intend to write off part or all of that debt? What categories of person will he be nominating for those water boards?
  Mr. Lang: Those are precisely the kind of points that it is perfectly proper to raise and which we shall consider when we draw up the proposals that we shall bring forward in due course, when the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to debate them.
  On costs and savings, I was interested to see that Dundee district council estimated that the new arrangements proposed in Tayside would save some £1·8 million per annum. Angus district council, the hon. Gentleman's own authority, estimated a saving of £2·3 million for the same arrangements. In Fife, Dunfermline district council estimated a saving of £8 million per annum from an all-purpose Fife authority, and North-East Fife district council estimated the same. Therefore, there is a cross-party consensus across those authorities on the kind of savings that will be available.
  With regard to job losses—another scare raised by the Labour party—it turns out that rather than the substantial number of job losses of which Labour Members spoke, there will be a maximum of some 2,200. If one compares that with the burgeoning employment figures and bureaucracy in local government that I discovered only yesterday—last year alone, employment in local authorities rose by no less than 4,854, a rise of 2 per cent. at a time of recession and public expenditure restraint—one puts into clearer perspective the kind of saving of less than 1 per cent. that it has been suggested will be the result of job losses arising from reform.
  Strathclyde's Labour leader surpasses even the hon. Member for Monklands, West when he talks about extra costs and extra job losses and plucks out of the air a figure of 20,000. He might have had some tiny shred of credibility had he argued for one or the other, but he cannot have it both ways. If reform can save 20,000 jobs, local authorities must be inefficient at present, in which case savings—not extra costs—are a certainty.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: If the Secretary of State is so sure that his proposals are
  998
  right for Scotland, why does not he test them at the ballot box and give Scotland the opportunity of a multi-referendum that could include his proposals for local government? Is not it the case that he will not do that because the proposals would be binned by the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Lang: The Government are answerable at the ballot box by elections to this Parliament for everything that we do.
  The Opposition have been scaremongering about jobs, costs and other issues that they have raised to create distraction and misunderstanding about the proposals. It is disgraceful that Labour leaders seek only to instill alarm and despondency among local government staff whose interests they claim to protect. Now, as if the palpable failure of all their scares was not enough, the Opposition raise the spectre of gerrymandering. I reject that charge. Our proposals are largely based on the existing building blocks of regions and districts. Four existing regions survive largely intact and many more districts have had their powers enhanced greatly.
  By abolishing the two-tier structure and by lifting the baleful socialist shadow which stretches across the central belt of Scotland and far beyond to the outlying areas, we shall enable those areas to break free and assert their own varied political allegiances, whether those may be Liberal, Conservative independent or nationalist. That is not gerrymandering—it is a healthy strengthening of local democracy in all its diversity.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Secretary of State's last phrase was about the "healthy strengthening of local democracy". He specifically mentioned many cases from the blueprint of the enhanced powers that are to be given to the districts. Does he recognise that neither description can be applied to the highlands, where all existing districts are to be abolished and one council is to cover the region?
  The Secretary of State's statement last week laid great emphasis on the way in which he would require decentralisation within the new authorities. He did not emphasise paragraph 3.5 of page 5 of the White Paper, which concerns decentralisation schemes. The White Paper is, interestingly, coloured blue. It says:
  "Guidance will be issued to local authorities on how they might develop these schemes but the initiative will rest with the new councils and schemes will not require the approval of the Secretary of State."
  What possible satisfaction or guarantee can constituents across the highlands take from that worthless statement?
  Mr. Lang: I have considerable sympathy for some of the circumstances in the highlands. I also note the hon. Gentleman's interest in imposing control over local government. I believe that local government should be allowed as much discretion as possible. I draw comfort from the words of the convener of Highland regional council. He has made it abundantly clear how strongly his local authority, like many others in Scotland, is committed to decentralisation.
  I was addressing the baleful influence of socialism across the central belt of Scotland and beyond. I suggest that the Labour party is gerrymandering in reverse. It seeks to keep in place the distorted instruments of its unfair hegemony over central Scotland. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. So many hon. Gentleman are rising that no one can hear who wants to intervene.
  Mr. Lang: The Opposition do not like the truth—they know how much it hurts.
  Under the two-tier structure, Scotland has suffered double jeopardy under Labour. Labour has exercised control, if not through the districts then through the regions, in ways that have smothered local politics and local economies.
  Since the Opposition's claims last week—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West in his speech—I have checked on some figures. In the regional elections in 1990, the votes cast and seats gained revealed that it took 3,133 votes to elect a Labour councillor, 6,419 to elect a Conservative and even more to elect a Scottish Nationalist. That means that it is more than twice as hard for a Conservative councillor to be elected as it is for a Labour councillor. The picture in district councils is broadly the same, so what we are hearing is not the high tone of principle but the shrill cries of vested interests being dislodged.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way at long last. It was rather unfortunate that he cited personal attacks, probably leaked by the Scottish Office itself to cheap newspapers, in defence of his speech. He said that one should become "adapt" at responding to the facts—I think that he meant "adept". He gave figures on voting at local elections, but will be explain why the Conservative party contests so few seats? Why is it that where it contested seats there seems to be more representation but where it did not field candidates the local authorities seem much larger?
  Mr. Lang: I said neither "adept" nor "adapt" when referring to the hon. Gentleman's quotation; I said inept—[Laughter]—inapt, but I could as easily have said "inept". The hon. Gentleman proves it again.
  Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we make it clear that we all heard the Secretary of State say "inapt", which perfectly describes his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If all sides are agreed on what was said, Hansard will have recorded it—
  Dr. Reid: Even if there is no such word?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Gentleman. If all sides are not agreed, we shall have to go by what Hansard says.
  Mr. Lang: I welcome the Labour party's predictions about the Conservative success that it thinks will flow from the proposals, although the Labour party's attitude is strangely defeatist.
  Let us consider what the claim of our likely political success under the new system implies: either it means that thousands of Conservative voters have, in effect, been disenfranchised by the present structure and will now be liberated or that our proposals will be popular and will win support in Scotland. I can face either conclusion with complete equanimity.
  I will take no lectures on gerrymandering from any Member of Parliament for Monklands, an area in which one group of Labour councillors stands accused by
  1000
  another group of Labour councillors of showing bias in capital allocations. How does that administration explain the fact that for every £1 of capital resources allocated to Airdrie, £10 is allocated to Coatbridge? We will protect the interests of all residents of all parties in Monklands, and under our proposals Monklands district council will be abolished.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lang: No, I will not give way because I have already done so many times.
  Where do the Opposition parties stand on our proposals for local government reform? The hon. Member for Monklands, West said on television last week that the Labour party was absolutely committed to reversing our reforms. Yet in the House the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) expressed his
  "great satisfaction at the restoration of a single tier authority for … Aberdeen".
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said that he had
  "always advocated an all-purpose authority for the city of Dundee".
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) welcomed our recognition in the White Paper that
  "Cambuslang and Rutherglen are separate communities in their own right."—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 478–82.]
  The hon. Member for Monklands, West is committed to
  blocking, frustrating and sabotaging our proposals, yet only last Friday the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had a productive and constructive meeting with my hon. Friend and myself at which it asked for a further meeting and agreed to co-operate through a working party on finance in studying costings.
  Only today in The Herald, under the heading "Labour Councils Smooth Lang's Way", we learn that four councils in the Central region yesterday announced
  "that they had signed a management agreement designed to smooth the way for the creation of single tier councils in their area."
  The Daily Record, which is no friend of the Conservative party, states:
  "A giant hole has been blasted in Labour's campaign against Scots local government changes."
  Yet it is the chief executives who have made the agreement,
  although the Daily Record states—so I presume it is true—that they were backed by their political leaders, the council leaders, even though Central, Clackmannan and Falkirk are Labour controlled. That is less than 24 hours after Scottish Labour leaders pledged a non-co-operation pact involving Members of Parliament, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and COSLA. The fact is that the Opposition parties are all over the place, but those local authorities are being a great deal more responsible.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Perhaps the Secretary of State has not heard that the chief executives of the four authorities, including Stirling which is Conservative controlled, have today issued a statement saying:
  "We reject any implication that our actions in issuing the joint protocol provide either support, co-operation, corroboration or agreement with the Government proposals."
  Mr. Lang: That is absolutely fine, but the fact is that they are doing it and are being much more responsible

  1001
  than the Opposition, because they care about the delivery of local services in local government. The Labour party's shiny new slogan is "Bring back Strathclyde". If that is how Labour want to fight the next general election, it will be very interesting.
  As well as reversing our proposals, Labour has a second policy. It wants to establish a commission, "an independent Labour commission" no less—presumably one which, to quote Harold Wilson, would take minutes and waste years.
  We must have some clarification about the commission. Is it the same commission that Labour set up to consider a separate Scottish Parliament, or is it a separate commission? If so, would it not be more sensible to call it a convention to avoid confusion, or is there still a convention in being?
  Which will come first—the commission or the legislation to reinstate the two-tier structure? Or will we have both together so that while Labour is legislating to set up the two-tier structure, it will also be setting up a commission to investigate whether it is a good idea to abolish the two-tier structure and, if so, what to put in its place? Perhaps Labour will also tell us how long the commission will take—five, 10, 15 or 20 years. Does it care?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would a serious discussion of these matters not at least pay tribute to the considerable, although not perfect, achievements of Strathclyde and Lothian? Will the Secretary of State take it from me, in view of my particular political history, that what he is doing is inflicting grave injury on the Union?
  Mr. Lang: I can only say that I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member. I am absolutely convinced that our proposals for the reform of local government will greatly strengthen local government, local democracy and good government in Scotland, which can only enhance the Union.
  The real significance of the Labour party's pledge to establish a commission is that, beneath all the fumbling and stumbling, it is committing itself to a single-tier local government structure for Scotland. Usually, Labour's U-turns take about four years; this time, it has taken about four days. If the Labour party is serious about local government reform—its proposal for a commission suggests that it is—all that distinguishes us is disagreement over some aspects of the map.
  It is time for the Labour party to raise the tone of its involvement in the debate and get away from its narrow party self-interest. Above all, let us hear some concern from the Labour party about the quality of services on which so many local people depend. A single-tier structure will provide a significant opportunity to improve further the quality and delivery of services. The integration of services that are currently divided between two sources clearly promises improved efficiency and co-ordination as well as cost savings. Housing and social work, or trading standards and environmental health, are just two examples of how better co-ordination can lead to better services.
  There are also opportunities through proposals for decentralised management to improve the quality of local government. New authorities developing schemes of decentralisation in decision making, consultation,
  1002
  administration and greater access are going with the grain of local authority thinking. Many are already working on such schemes. There is a widely recognised potential that more can be done. Why should one have to go to Dumfries for the replacement of a broken street light if one lives in Stranraer? Why should one have to go to one council for a council house and to another for a home help?
  There are new opportunities in local government in Scotland, but a change of philosophy and a flexible approach—things which the Labour party seems unable to comprehend—are needed to enable local services to be delivered in place of the old, rigid empires of direct service providers. I want to see local authorities liberated. I want to see a new era in which local government becomes a watchword for quality and efficiency. I want local authorities to be a source of pride and loyalty in their communities. I want them to provide exciting career opportunities for those who work in them.
  That is the future which Conservatives seek to build for local democracy in Scotland—strong, all-purpose authorities that truly reflect the diversity and the qualities of all the varied parts of Scotland. On that positive note, I urge the House to reject this destructive and negative motion and to support the amendment.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the Secretary of State's is just the kind of speech and that these are just the kind of proposals that bring the Government and the House into disrepute in Scotland. If there had been any genuine consultation about the way in which the review of the structure of Scottish local government should be conducted, the Government could not possibly have come up with proposals such as those that we are contemplating now.
  For example, surely they could not have overlooked the obvious distinction between East Lothian and Berwickshire. East Lothian and Berwickshire have always been, and always will be, distinct entities. The only way round that would be to rewrite the history of Scotland and to bulldoze the Lammermuir hills into the sea. The distinctions between the three counties in the Lothians and the four counties of the Borders could not be clearer. That is the message that I have been getting from all sorts of people on both sides of the Lammermuirs ever since these bizarre proposals came to light a couple of weeks ago.
  Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland has created certain difficulties and embarrassments for his Conservative colleagues on East Lothian district council. They attended a council meeting in Haddington this morning, where their line was that they had no choice but to accept the Secretary of State's proposals although they opposed the idea of dividing East Lothian. That is their problem.
  Mr. James Wallace: This is liberating local government.
  Mr. Home Robertson: It is debilitating local government. It is an illustration of the crazy situation that the Secretary of State is bringing about.

  1003
  Perhaps I should quote local papers in East Lothian and the Borders, which traditionally support the Conservative party. Last week's leader in the East Lothian Courier said:
  "A wedding of the two counties would make nonsense of the word 'reorganisation' in virtually every sense, other than the narrow party political interest … Mr. Lang will hear the beat of the tom-tom and realise that the worst criticisms of the Opposition parties are shared by the man in the street, as well as many of his supporters."
  South of the Lammermuirs, the leader in the Berwickshire News, which is headed "We must remain in the Borders", said that the proposed amalgamation
  "certainly smacks of political opportunism."
  Indeed it does.
  The Secretary of State is proposing two amazing new local councils to cover my constituency. Both of them would be beyond the political creativity of even the celebrated Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, the man who cobbled together a district shaped like a salamander and gave us the word "gerrymander". At least his salamander was in one piece, with its head attached to its shoulders. The proposed pseudo-Lothian creation is in two separate parts, detached by the Balerno corridor, with my constituents in Musselburgh and Prestonpans mysteriously tacked on to one of the bits. That mystery can, of course, be resolved by taking into account the fact that those parts of my constituency happen to have elected six Labour councillors, who do not fit into the scheme of things as seen by Professor Ross Harper. The remaining part of East Lothian, served by seven Tory councillors and four non-Tory councillors, is to be floated off to Tory-controlled Berwickshire. I wonder why.
  What the Secretary of State for Scotland is proposing could be described as a sort of aggravated shotgun marriage. We can cast the Secretary of State in the role of an evil stepfather who could not care less about the welfare of the couple. All he wants them to do is to conceive a Tory council. This will produce some very curious bedfellows.
  Dr. Reid: Bed persons.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, bed persons. I think of Cockenzie and Coldstream. What else do they have in common? Not much. Political expediency is not a sound basis for the reform of Scottish local government. Nothing like this has ever been done before, and if the House is, for once, to live up to its responsibilities, it must not be allowed to happen now.
  Let us have a quick look at the proposed Berwickshire and East Lothian authority. I represented both those counties from 1978 until 1983, so I am very well aware of the fundamental differences in community interests and identity, economic structure and general outlook, between the two sides of the Lammermuir hills. They have always, but always—right back to mediaeval times—had separate local administrations. The new authority proposed by the Secretary of State would be an administrative farce and a geographical joke. The only all-weather link between the two counties is at Dunglass bridge, and the geographical centre of the proposed composite district would be 1,000 ft up the Lammermuirs, on a hill called the Hungry Snout.
  Since the political snout of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Hungry Snout seem to be the only common denominator between Berwickshire and East Lothian, I suggest that, henceforth, the Secretary of State's proposed area should be described as "Snoutshire".
  1004
  "Snoutshire" would be Scotland's smallest mainland authority. The Secretary of State proposes 25 council areas, with an average population of just over 200,000. This one would have just 76,000 people, despite the fact that it is a large, scattered and incompatibly divided area. So, with well under half the average population and a big area, the costs of running a full range of local services, including education, social work, special education and everything else, would be disproportionately high. Thus, there would be either a high council tax or worse services or—most likely—both.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Home Robertson: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I want to be fair to everybody.
  I should love to go into the byways about where the headquarters would be. What about the school whose catchment area will be divided by the proposed boundary? I shall not go into those matters at this stage, except to say that what is proposed would be a complete travesty. It is not surprising that all sorts of people in both counties are amazed and outraged. Yesterday I received from a former chairman of the East Lothian branch of the National Farmers Union for Scotland a letter demanding that East Lothian be kept together. In last week's press we read words of a committed local Conservative. Speaking on behalf of the 60-strong East Lothian business group, he said:
  "It's crazy. We don't want to see a very good relationship end in this farcical shake-up."
  The clear consensus in my constituency is that East Lothian must remain intact, as it always has been. There may or may not be a case for combining our district with a neighbouring district—it is very unlikely that that would turn out to be Berwickshire—but there is no serious or convincing support for the idea of dividing East Lothian in two. The existing district has a population of 86.000—bigger and more logical than the one proposed by the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way—please?
  Mr. Home Robertson: All right.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the question of local services, the Secretary of State, within the hearing of us all, said that when street lights in Stranraer were broken, one had to go to Dumfries. I have telephoned Wigtown district council—the office of Mr. Alastair Geddes—and found that this is absolute nonsense, that these things are done by the client services department, Church street, Stranraer. What we have been given is lies.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There may be a misunderstanding or misinformation, but the hon. Gentleman may not accuse another hon. Member of lying. Perhaps he would like to rephrase his comment.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the case of Westland, I was turned out of the House five times for having said that Lady Thatcher was a liar. That is now generally accepted—by Sir Leon Brittan and everybody else. I do not want to divert my colleagues by being thrown out again, so I shall refer to this as being economical with the truth.
  Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has illustrated the fact that the Secretary of State knows as little about his own constituency as he does about my part of Scotland or the rest of the country.
  I am prepared to accept that there may be a case for single-tier authorities, but I am certain that I speak for virtually all my constituents when I say that I reject the plan to split East Lothian between two freakish, artificial authorities. That sort of carve-up and the Secretary of State's proposals for non-accountable, unelected quangos to run the water industry are a disgrace to the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He should take his proposals away, set up a proper independent review and start all over again.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On Thursday when the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) replied to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State he said:
  "we are being asked to consider a White Paper for which there is no consensus in Scotland, no support, no demand".
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Gentleman said that clearly, definitely and with all the authority that he was able to muster.
  The House will understand my complete astonishment when I found, on the following morning, that the front page of The Press and Journal carried an equally unambiguous and bold heading, "Aberdeen achieves goal". Given that this is the close season, the paper was certainly not talking about football. Two contradictory statements were therefore issued about my right hon. Friend's proposals, one from the hon. Member for Monklands, West and one from The Press and Journal. With all respect to the hon. Member for Monklands West, I would suggest that The Press and Journal is closer than he is to the thinking of the people of Aberdeen. I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong, but in his time as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland he has yet to visit Aberdeen.
  The hon. Gentleman need not take the word of The Press and Journal for the support expressed for my right hon. Friend's proposals. It has been voiced by all parties and all quarters in Aberdeen. The day after the original proposals were put to the House, the political parties in Aberdeen were vying with each other to try to outdo each other in clamouring to express their support. Not surprisingly, the support started with the Conservative group leader on the district council, Councillor Mike Hastie, who said:
  "I am delighted we are to become a single-tier authority again."
  That was not any good for the Scottish National party, because its group leader, Brian Adam, pitched in and said:
  "I am in favour of single-tier authorities".
  The leader of the Liberal Democrat group, John Reynolds, said:
  "We are in favour of Aberdeen being made a unitary authority".
  The Labour party's group leader and leader of the council in the city of Aberdeen said:
  "We welcome the return to being a single-tier, all-purpose authority, which we have been working towards since 1974".
  Even the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said—I concede that he said it rather grudgingly and through gritted teeth—
  1006
  "There will certainly be great satisfaction at the restoration of a single-tier authority for the city of Aberdeen."
  It was therefore breath-taking arrogance and a display of total contempt for the people of Aberdeen for the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his hon. Friends to ignore such statements of wholehearted support from all sides for my right hon. Friend's proposals.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: My acceptance of an all-tier authority was not made through gritted teeth. What I did say through gritted teeth and which was widely echoed by people in Aberdeen, including Tom Paine, the leader of the Labour group, was that I regretted the way in which Westhill had been tacked on to the city of Aberdeen. More important than that, however, it is clear that the Secretary of State's intention is to provide a smokescreen with the boundaries; his real intention is to strip local councils of real control and the real delivery of services.
  Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, I shall discuss Westhill later.
  It was breath-taking arrogance on the part of the hon. Member for Monklands, West and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench to ignore all shades of political opinion in Aberdeen. Such was the arrogance of the hon. Gentleman when he said that there was
  "no consensus … no support, no demand"—[Official Report, 8 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 472.]
  for the proposals of my right hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman can dismiss in a cavalier manner the views of elected councillors of all parties in Aberdeen and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North, over how many other councillors', hon. Members' and people's opinions has he ridden roughshod in his frantic attempt to fabricate a case to help him deny the popularity of my right hon. Friend's proposals?
  If the hon. Member for Monklands, West were still in the Chamber I would ask him to come to the Dispatch Box to apologise to his Labour local government colleagues in Aberdeen and to the wider community in Aberdeen, political and non-political, for misrepresenting them and ignoring their long-held views in order to score a cheap political point. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), when he replies to the debate, will apologise not only to the Labour party of Aberdeen, but to the wider Aberdonian community.
  Mr. John McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robertson: I will not give way. Sit down.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) is not giving way.
  Mr. Robertson: As the debate develops in the coming months, the hon. Member for Monklands, West will be forced to eat his words of last Thursday in respect not just of Aberdeen but of communities throughout Scotland.
  Much has been said about the decision to include Westhill in the new Aberdeen city council, to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has already referred.
  Mr. Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that an awful lot of Labour supporters may want local government to be reorganised, but only when we have in place a Scottish Parliament? Then the debate would be meaningful and services would not be delivered by quangos, which would be running the cities, in accordance with the Tory plan.
  Mr. Robertson: When the Scottish people watch this debate and the arrayed masses opposite, is it any wonder that they consistently vote against a Scottish Assembly?
  We have been told that the decision to include Westhill in the new Aberdeen city council is all part of some great Tory plot to increase Conservative representation. If only, if only. Those who talk about Westhill seem to forget that it has no elected Conservative councillors at either district or regional level. In the 1988 and 1992 district elections no Conservative candidates even stood for election. That seems to be a rather perverse form of gerrymandering.
  Far from a political manoeuvre, my right hon. Friend has responded to the case made by the Labour-controlled City of Aberdeen district council, whose submission to the original consultation document was approved by the full council, after being rammed through by the ruling majority Labour group. On page 53, that submission says:
  "A boundary could be drawn quite tight to the west of Elrick, which is part of Westhill, to avoid including Kirkton of Skene, thereafter utilising minor roads and farm access tracks to reconnect with the existing city boundary at the Leuchar Burn in the vicinity of Mid Anguston. This proposal would enable the lands at Cairnie, owned by the City Council, to be incorported within the City's administrative area."
  Paragraph 7.20 of the submission states:
  "It may be the case that inhabitants of those areas may not choose to regard themselves as part of the 'community' of Aberdeen, and that individual reasons for taking that view are of greater or lesser validity, but if the economic life of such places as Westhill is inextricably bound up with that of the City, and significant levels of use of the City's cultural and recreational facilities are enjoyed by residents of those places, there may well be a sound case for extending the City's boundaries."
  I am sure that Labour councillors on Aberdeen district council will be glad to hear that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland has said that they are narrow-minded.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Westhill is in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should take on board the fact that the people of Westhill have not expressed any wish to be included in the city of Aberdeen—quite the reverse. Gordon district has invested heavily in community facilities in Westhill, which the city of Aberdeen may not have done.
  Mr. Robertson: The contention that I outlined in the submission from Aberdeen district council suggests that if my right hon. Friend is to be accused of gerrymandering it is Conservative Members who should be complaining.
  Mr. Bruce: Answer the question.
  Mr. Robertson: I am about to do so. The people of Westhill look to the city and their focus is the city, as I am sure the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) would agree.
  The most recent figures produced by Grampian regional council show that, of a resident and economically active population of 3,200, some 2,200 work in Aberdeen. The inclusion of Westhill in the city boundaries is a welcome and long overdue move. It is vital to recognise the
  1008
  role that Westhill and its population play in the life of the city. It is also vital to recognise the corresponding demand placed on city services for which, until now, there has been no recompense.
  The including of Westhill also addresses, just as importantly, what Opposition Members would call the democratic deficit, because the people of Westhill have had no say in the affairs of a city that plays such a major and strategic role in their day-to-day lives.
  If the hon. Member for Monklands, West had bothered to address such issues as communities and the provision of services rather than playing to the gallery behind him last Thursday, he might have come to some different conclusions. In so doing, he would have spared himself the embarrassment of what followed.
  Last Thursday, the House witnessed what the people of Scotland have had to witness for too long: the Secretary of State taking Scotland forward, updating her institutions and preparing her to meet head on the challenges and opportunities of the new century.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We must all be responsible for what we say in the House, but is it in order for an hon. Member deliberately to misquote from a document and not give way to someone who knows something about the matter?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Hon. Members are entirely responsible for their speeches and how they quote from documents.
  Mr. Robertson: Last Thursday, Labour Members responded, as they are doing now, with gesture politics, showing their inability to grasp the issues of the day or contribute to the debate in a meaningful way. The Scottish people were not persuaded by last Thursday's antics. Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Monklands, West, they laughed at his false rage and were left unmoved by his self-righteous indignation. They saw through the whole thing, as he and his colleagues will soon learn. They resented being used by the hon. Gentleman as a backdrop to allow him to start his re-election campaign to the shadow Cabinet. They resent being used by him in a frantic and grubby attempt to shore up the support of the Scotland United group of Members of Parliament and to win over a few of his, until now, unimpressed colleagues.
  Last week had nothing to do with the hon. Member for Monklands, West trying to speak for Scotland or even for the Labour vote, but everything to do with sending a message to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) that he was, even after a year, still one of the boys.
  Last week had nothing to do with plans to wipe Strathclyde, Lothian, Tayside or Monklands from Scotland's political map, but everything to do with trying to wipe the smirk from the face of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). That smirk appears on the hon. Gentleman's face every time his boss speaks at the Dispatch Box. The Labour party went too far. It treated the people of Scotland with consummate contempt as pawns in its sordid little struggle as it jockeys for positions of power.
  Last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke for Scotland, which is why the reforms are popular, will work and will last.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: The voters of Westhill will have noted the patronising terms in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) has referred to them. He implied that they should know better and should want to be part of Aberdeen. His argument could be applied to Eastwood's relationship to Glasgow, or even to Portlethen's Stonehaven's or Banchory's relationship with Aberdeen. I doubt whether his logic will go down well in the constituency of the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
  We also heard the Secretary of State say that, if someone wants a light bulb changed in Stranraer, he must go to Dumfries. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, that is palpably untrue. Under the Secretary of State's proposals, that might happen, because my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) showed that, where existing regions are to remain, it will be up to the regions whether to devolve responsibility. Clearly, the House was seriously misled simply for the sake of cheap jibes and good one-liners, which did not befit the office of Secretary of State.
  Given the blatant partisan nature of the proposals, I am not surprised that there has been so much furore about the boundaries. Everyone wants to know what criteria the Government applied when drawing up those boundaries. What is so special about Eastwood or East Renfrewshire that, with a population of 88,000, they can be single-tier authorities, whereas Inverclyde next door, with a district population of 93,500, cannot?
  What is so special about Highland, and Dumfries and Galloway, which are both bigger in size and population than Borders, that they should remain intact, while Borders must be butchered to create a council in Berwick and East Lothian to suit the Conservative party's wishes? People might legitimately want a straight answer to those questions, but may not think that they will ever get one.
  More important, what is local government all about? We play into the Government's hands if we spend all our time in the next 18 months debating the Balerno corridor or the Eastwood enclave. In his introduction to last autumn's consultation paper, the Secretary of State said:
  "The exercise is, after all, not only about redrawing maps. It is ultimately about organising local government to enable it to fulfil its potential as a legitimate and powerful part of our democracy."
  I quote those words because the point is succinctly made, not because I attach significance to the fact that it was made by the Secretary of State. It is the kind of phrase that one expects Secretaries of State to put in such a document. One can envisage the Secretary of State writing it, the pen oozing with sincerity, but one knows full well that, when Tory Ministers talk about power and local democracy, they are as genuinely concerned about them as the big bad wolf was when he expressed concern about Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother. They have no concept of what local democracy is about, because 14 years of Conservative government have seen more than 150 measures designed to take powers from local democracy.
  When the Secretary of State says that he wants to liberate local democracy, he should own up to the fact that the Government have emasculated local democracy and that the measure is a smokescreen to continue that course.
  Even when we find in the document a germ of hope that might mean more power being given to local government,
  1010
  we must wait and see what happens. We are told that there will be statutory confirmation of a local authority's right to become involved in industrial development activities, yet the same paragraph tells us that the Secretary of State will reserve to himself power
  "to make regulations imposing conditions or restriction on the way in which local authorities carry out this function." Even when the Secretary of State is giving with one hand, he is taking away with the other.
  If this had been a genuine exercise in promoting local democracy, a general competence power would have been given to local authorities, and the Government would have ensured that councils were elected by a fair voting system.
  I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State accept that the present system was rubbish, and that it took twice as many Conservative votes to elect a Conservative councillor as it did to elect a Labour councillor. Proportional representation is the fair way to deal with that, not gerrymandering councils. We want a system in which the electorate will judge local authorities' performance, and financial responsibility is enforced through the ballot box, not through ministerial fiat. We want not so much the glossy pages of the citizens charter as a statute setting down minimum standards that are enforceable by the citizen in law courts.
  The Government stand most condemned when we consider their case for reform and see what they are saying compared to what they are doing. Today the Secretary of State quoted opinion polls, saying that there was an overwhelming popular demand for unitary authorities.
  Let us be fair: having regard to popular opinion in Scotland is a novel approach for the Government. We are not told why public opinion on this issue must be heeded and why popular opinion expressed at the ballot box about the need for a Scottish Parliament is ignored. I suspect that many of the people who responded to the first consultation document in 1991, saying that they wanted a single-tier authority, understood that it would be a single-tier authority with a Scottish Parliament. That is the proper context in which to consider single-tier authorities.
  The 1991 consultation document said that the people rejected the present system because
  "The risk of confusion, which was always inherent in a two tier structure, is therefore increasingly emerging as a serious weakness."
  It also spoke of the need to end the "clouding of accountability" and
  "the potential for duplication, waste, delay and friction."
  But surely the largest contribution to the clouding of accountability has come from the Government's interference in local government. How can a local authority be held to account when so many of the criticisms can be met with the response that inefficiency, nonsense or unpopularity has been imposed by central Government?
  I doubt whether the friction between region and district has ever been as great as the friction that Tory Governments have generated between central Government and local government. Which local authority—islands, district or region—has managed to compare with central Government in producing the level of wasteful expenditure associated with the poll tax?
  The Secretary of State has found an easy way to ensure that there will be no more clouding of accountability in the case of water: he will end accountability. Yet another quango will spring into life, which will make it easier to transfer the water industry into the private sector when the Treasury demands that that should be done.

  1011
  The Secretary of State's lack of an answer to a question posed by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was illuminating. Will there be another consultation paper to tell us what the three areas are, how the boards will be constituted, what the financial arrangements will be, and whether debts will be written off? In relation to water and sewerage services, the White Paper leaves more questions unanswered than even the original consultation document.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Quayle-Munro will prepare the report.
  Mr. Wallace: Quayle-Munro will no doubt be paid a substantial amount to provide another report, which is meaningless.
  When the Government were preparing their consultation document, they told us that, although regional councils all decentralise decision-making to some extent, inevitably it is difficult for individuals to find their way around those unavoidably large organisations.
  In an open letter to the Secretary of State, Councillor Ross Finnie, the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Inverclyde district council, has underlined how difficult it has been for Inverclyde residents in the Paisley-based Renfrew sub-region of Strathclyde. However, ignoring local opinion in Inverclyde and community links, the Secretary of State proposes that Inverclyde should form part of the existing unitary sub-region of Strathclyde. Therefore, Inverclyde will experience the problems which he has identified, and which he said in the White Paper would be eliminated.
  Citizens in Caithness and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will be reassured that, since the publication of the consultation paper last year, when the difficulties were highlighted, Ministers have been persuaded that decentralised decision-making in a large region, if it happens, will no longer pose any problems for the individuals involved.
  I am sure that people in Skye, Caithness and Stranraer will conveniently forget, as Ministers will want them to, that the document also stated:
  "The individual may consider that the presence of a local office or existence of an area committee will not always be an effective substitute for being able to attend a full council or council committee meeting. In general, therefore, the links with the community seem likely to be closer, and the accountability of elected members more obvious and direct, in an authority which is relatively small."
  The one silver lining in the matter is that we might save the north of Scotland railway lines, because councillors and members of the public will have to travel the hundred miles by train to attend the local council meetings.
  I shall continue to illustrate the mismatch between promises and outcome. The Secretary of State has done whatever he wants to be done, particularly if it helps to promote the Conservative cause. We have heard the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
  An analysis of the responses to the consultation document showed that, of 108 responses from south-east Scotland, 105 wanted the continuation of the Borders region or two units which would maintain the present integrity of the Borders region. Three were against: the Conservative group of Lothian region, the Conservative group of Berwickshire district council and one Conservative councillor.
  The prospectus published last year stated:
  1012
  "We will consider carefully all the comments we receive before making decisions about the shape, size and number of the new authorities."
  The prospectus failed to mention the existence of the golden share, which is usually in the hands of the chairman of the local Conservative association.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: We are debating an extremely important issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government are making no attempt to justify the boundaries that they are proposing, safe in the knowledge that they have a parliamentary majority behind them? Does he agree that the Government intend to drive through these politically partisan proposals, which have no support in Scotland, except among their own ranks? Does he agree that that process will threaten the Union in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)?
  Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the spot. The Government's proposals go beyond the conventions of an unwritten constitution. I would rather have a written constitution, but we have an unwritten constitution which is bound by conventions. Those conventions have been broken.
  It may be argued that constitutional changes have taken place in the past—the Chamber has been the scene of many battles—but history will show that those battles were usually fought over the progress of people's democracy, not shabby little pieces of political manipulation such as those with which the House has been presented today.
  Perhaps hope for us all lies in the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who told the Select Committee on Defence earlier this week that, in two or three years, there might well be a different Government. It would be the ultimate irony if those who seek to defeat democracy are, in turn, defeated by democracy.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. George Kynoch: I shall try not to detain the House longer than necessary, as I am aware that many Opposition Members want to speak.
  The motion refers to "unnecessary changes", and talks of the lack of general support for the introduction of single-tier authorities. In my district of Scotland, there is a strong wish to have single-tier local authorities, and for a good reason. People want a single-tier local authority which is as near the people as possible and provides services at the best possible cost.
  That is not to say that local authorities which have run services to date have not been doing a good job, but circumstances have changed and it is time to evolve. For too long, constituents have been at sea as to whether functions are carried out by regional or district councils. When they encounter a problem, it is passed from councillor to councillor or from department to department—it is not known who is responsible for the service involved.
  In the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have realised that, when I hold surgeries and constituents visit me, many of the problems they bring should be addressed to their local councillors. The reason my constituents come to me is because they do not know to whom they should turn, and they cannot be bothered to waste time as the buck is passed from person to person.

  1013
  They would rather achieve some action by going straight to the right place initially. Surely that is not what local government is about. Local councils should be accountable, local and flexible, and they should have clear responsibilities.
  I represent a largely rural constituency. The problems and requirements of rural constituencies and districts are different from those which obtain in cities. One obvious sector of concern in my rural district is primary school education. In cities, it is possible to rationalise schools and ensure that funds are used in the best way in a new primary school which provides education for as many children as possible. Children may have to travel a distance which seems relatively far in city terms, but which is, in rural terms, a small distance. In rural constituencies, the primary school is often the hub of a local community—educating smaller numbers of children and providing the necessary education to the children of that district. If there is rationalisation, those children will have to travel greater distances.
  Constituents in rural districts sometimes wonder whether a regional education authority which includes a city places too much emphasis on the easy option of providing primary schools in cities. It is all too easy to neglect primary schools in rural areas. I have seen that happen in my constituency, where numerous smaller schools suffer from lack of attention, because too much attention is paid to city education.
  It would be useful to move towards city single-tier local authorities that are separate from rural districts, so that the problems of the rural outlying districts could be addressed by council members who understand the rural problems and do not have to battle with problems related to the city.
  Mr. John Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that city suburbs should be included in cities, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) argued? If he does believe in that principle, why should it not be extended to Glasgow as well as Aberdeen?
  Mr. Kynoch: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not want to argue about Glasgow. I would rather discuss the district of Scotland that I know much better—my constituency.
  There is always a grey area about whether a suburb is part of the city or rural, but a line must be drawn. I appreciate the difficulties that my right hon. Friend must have encountered in drawing some of those lines.
  Single-tier authorities will be welcomed by people in cities and in rural areas in which size is important. Rural authorities should be small enough to be local and large enough to be economically viable. We could debate for many hours what is viable and what is not, but, whatever the size of the unit, it must deliver services locally, effectively, efficiently and competitively.
  As with any business, the larger the unit, the easier it is to spread overheads and reduce overall cost. That seems to be a better way than subcontracting to provide services, but the obvious risk in doing it that way is that the local touch and the flexibility to provide services with local needs at heart may be lost.
  1014
  The proposed Aberdeenshire will have an area of about 2,300 square miles and a population of almost 200,000 spread over a diverse geographical area. The White Paper refers to decentralised management and administration about which my right hon. Friend spoke. How will that ensure that decisions are taken at the most local level?
  My right hon. Friend spoke commendably about people not having to make long journeys to visit council headquarters. I welcome that, because it embraces the idea of bringing local government to the people. How could that objective be achieved in single-tier local authorities in large rural areas without going halfway to a two-tier system?
  When the detail of the Bill is debated, I shall listen carefully to the Secretary of State's explanations. The larger areas must not become dinosaurian, to use the term employed earlier in the week by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), so that the head does not know what the tail is doing. It is a long way from north to south in the proposed Aberdeenshire.
  As the Secretary of State knows, I am concerned about the splitting of a local government area that has not been split for at least 170 years. In the 1970s, there was a strong fight in Kincardineshire to keep the area intact so that the Mearns was not separated from Kincardineshire. During the consultation period, nobody from that area who spoke to me favoured being separated from the north and attached to the south.
  One of my constituents who lives in Stonehaven wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. She sent me a covering letter and a copy of the letter sent to my right hon. Friend. The covering letter states:
  "I am afraid my letter may have been dictated more by my heart than my head. I am, however, Kincardine born, bred and educated. My birthplace was Laurencekirk and my maternal roots are in what is termed the Mearns. I cannot let that area come under the jurisdiction of another authority, where there would be no real interest in caring for what I naturally feel is my heritage.
  Since the beginning of local government last century, the county of Kincardine has been responsible for the area stretching from the Dee to the North Esk and over the Slug up Deeside to Kincardine O'Neil. As I have said to Mr. Lang, Kincardine is a family area. It must not be split."
  In determining the proposed local authorities my right hon. Friend wants to keep together people who are naturally together. It is fortunate that the White Paper has been presented before the summer recess, because during that time we can ascertain what the people of that area really want. I shall return to the split in Committee.
  While I warmly welcome the main thrust of single-tier local authorities, I neither applaud nor condemn the detailed proposal for my area. I seek from my right hon. Friend the reassurances that I have outlined, and I have flagged some areas of concern.
  I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals on water. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said that water was a gift of God. He failed to tell us that to get it from God to the human body entails a good deal of capital expenditure on equipment for treating it. When the human body has finished with it and before it passes to the sea, it has to undergo further treatment.
  It has been said that capital of about £5 billion will be required over the next 10 to 15 years for Scottish water. My right hon. Friend's proposal will not affect other services, and he has recognised the strong opinion from, I am sure, all constituencies that the people of Scotland do not at this time welcome the prospect of full-blown

  1015
  privatisation. However, those who face facts and appreciate the need to raise funds recognise that private capital must be raised if other services such as health, education and roads are not to suffer.
  The proposal for three public boards is sensible. The Government have grasped the local government nettle, and I look forward to the autumn, when we can debate the fine details of the Bill.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The White Paper and the Secretary of State's speech were sad efforts—an exercise in brute force and ignorance, with the stress on ignorance. That was made obvious by an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Secretary of State's theme was taken up by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who has now left the Chamber. [Interruption.] He has moved from where he was sitting. The debate was not improved by the speech by the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
  I have no fear of the Government succeeding in whatever they set out to do in Scotland. The aim of their hidden agenda is to make the Scottish people lose faith in local democracy. The Government tried to do that through manipulation in England and Wales and they are about to try it in Scotland. Local government elections in Scotland have always had a much higher turnout than those in any other part of the United Kingdom. That is because people take an interest and have faith in local democracy and in the publicly spirited people who seek to represent them.
  Who will stop the Government carrying out their purpose? It will be the people of Scotland who will continue to vote in elections because their service aspirations have not been dimmed by past happenings. The Government will also be stopped by local authorities staff in Scotland whose high standards of professionalism and dedication in delivering services have been untouched by Government manipulation and attacks. That will continue to be the case regardless of the attempts to stymie their aspirations by any Government, even Labour Governments in the past, for which we should be rightly ashamed. The individuals who are public spirited enough to stand for local government seek to represent their communities in a public spirited way and that will continue regardless of the Government's manipulations.
  I have every confidence that the non-Conservative council will fight on to optimise the services, but not necessarily to maximise them and try to make them as responsive as possible, as it has in the past.
  Some of the things that the Secretary of State said are not just a shame and a distortion of democracy, but undermine the very fabric of the Scottish people. They are a genuine threat to the Union, if the Secretary of State thinks that he is defending it.
  Local government is not and should never be a matter of geography or based on historic settlements. Some people jump up and down about such issues, but we should not look at them in that way. We need to consider communities as they can generate energy, create self-help initiatives and aspirations and reach out in an articulate way for the services that local authorities should provide.
  Whatever local government structure applies under the future Scottish Parliament, and it is consistent that there
  1016
  should be a Scottish Parliament before we have single-tier or any other new authority, it must be judged against objective criteria.
  The Labour party is accused of not looking at the future, but I chaired the local government committee of the Labour party in Scotland and we tried to look for those criteria. We did not look at geography but at criteria that would produce a positive result. It is quite clear that we studied the issues more deeply and intelligently than the civil servants have as we produced certain criteria for a Scottish Parliament and beyond.
  The criteria are, first, that the local authorities can be properly resourced and achieve the necessary benefits of scale—not necessarily the largest scale but the optimum one. Secondly, they should be able to guarantee a standard and level of service capable of creating an acceptable quality of life and improving the quality of life for those within the council area. Thirdly, local authorities should be accountable and, more importantly, responsive to the needs of local communities and individuals within the council area. The fourth criterion—on which the Government trip up most often—is that those priorities should be applied consistently throughout Scotland. That has not been done in the Government's exercise.
  The proposals resulting from the Government's supposed consultation do not reflect any of those criteria. The Government simply fail to do the right thing. The Secretary of State's rubbishing of an objective commission shows how unbelievably patronising to the Scottish people and how parochial and influenced by his party's interests rather than those of the Scottish people he has become. That is a sad fall for someone who I was told was an intelligent person with Scotland's future at heart.
  None of the proposals is based on consultation. They are totally inconsistent with the responses to the consultation exercise. Consultation is devalued by asking people what they want and then ignoring what they say.
  I want to focus on the bizarre manipulations and the contortions which resulted in what the Government hoped would be Tory enclaves. The image I had was Dickensian. I had Mr. Bumble the beadle, the hon. Member for Eastwood, and Mr. Scrooge, the hon. Member for Stirling, getting together to draw up something more like Dickensian local government than anything that could take us into the future.
  As a former leader of Stirling district council for 10 years, I make no apology for focusing on the potential damage that the proposals could do to the quality of life and the services available to people in that district and to future generations there. Stirling district had high-quality services, so we had to have a high tax level to provide district council services, but I suspect that the other mini-councils have the same problem: they do not have the economic base to give them an adequate income to provide the services that are provided at the moment by Central regional council.
  I shall not be tempted to draw boundary or geographical conclusions, but after 13 years in local government in Central region and three years outside, I can say that Central regional council delivers a higher level of service in education, social work, roads and economic development, not just absolutely but in terms of pound-for-pound spending and value for money than any predecessor authority and any alternative that has been suggested to date.

  1017
  The spectre of the Tory future which haunts the proposals for new Torylands, as I shall call them, has a particular form. In education, I suggest that there will be either higher local taxes—it is quite clear that the Conservative philosophy will not allow that—or massive service reductions with poorer staff training in education and fewer support staff. If a child in Stirling, Dunblane or Balfron needs educational psychology, he is less likely to get it under the proposed boundaries. Speech therapy and other support services for education such as libraries cannot be provided by small councils such as Stirling without raising the tax base, and that is not likely to be on the cards.
  The new Stirling philosophy is likely to offer an alternative. I am told that Stirling district council put a 53-page submission to the Secretary of State. We have seen some of the things that are already happening in Stirling. There will be proposals on opt out. Schools in Dunblane, Balfron, St. Modans and Stirling will be told that, if they opt out of the local authority, they will get a one-off bribe, as they did in England and Wales. They cannot come back to local authorities once they have opted out, so if services start to break down they will be on their own.
  The Tory alternative is already known. Community care policies in Stirling and Forth valley have been signalled by the unholy alliance between the ex-Tory councillor, Mrs. Iris Isbister, who chairs Forth Valley health board, and the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). She thinks that the private sector can provide all the community care necessary for the elderly in my constituency and the others within the Forth valley. They will push those most in need out of the local authorities and force them into the profit-motivated private sector where services will be lower and shoddier and in many cases the cheap, shoddy private sector will be the only option.
  I left Stirling in 1990 and moved to my new constituency. Recently, I went back to attend a function in that area and visited some friends in the estate where I used to live. The grass was a foot high. Stirling used to be a shining example of a tourist town. It now has a shoddy, shambolic council. It was so bad that the Conservative councillors were calling for special meetings to force the contractors to cut the grass to the standard that the people expected. There have been cuts in services; recently the solicitor service went out to the private sector with the sacking of solicitors who had given the council loyal service. That spectre haunts people in the Torylands.
  I am tempted to encourage the Government in this way as that would be the end of the Conservatives in Scotland. In Stirling they will get rid of the hon. Member for Stirling and they will get rid of the council. The present Conservative Member for Stirling will have a weaker base when people realise that they not only have to put up with him down here but with his philosophies in local services.
  I am proud of the fact that, in a constructed constituency, where they took out three mining villages that were recommended by the commission and put in Dunblane and Bridge of Allan, and where there should have been a massive Tory majority, the hon. Gentleman's majority went down to 548 when I challenged him in 1987 and he is hanging on by 700 at the moment. This proposal makes sure that another party will take that seat.
  1018
  I do not want to be so partisan. I want to recommend to the Government that they do the honest thing, not because I do not want rid of them in Scotland, but because I want the Scottish people to have decent local government. I ask them to turn back, change their minds and bring in a structure that is responsive to people's needs and not about trying to save one or two silly Tory councils.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: The Opposition motion would be a joke if it were not in the names of members of the Labour Front Bench. It makes charges of "inadequate consultation", but the fact that 3,500 people were consulted disproves that accusation. The motion criticises also the shortness of time allowed, but there were four months of consultation and five months of consideration—and no doubt there will be 12 months of further debate in this Chamber and in Committee. How much time is needed?
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gallie: It is typical of Labour Members to seek more time, because it is easier to talk. They are not used to making decisions. After 14 years, they do not need to worry about making decisions.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's voice was very clear. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) heard the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) earlier and that he does not intend to give way.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said that he would approve single-tier government after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Labour has talked about establishing a Scottish Parliament ever since it was last in government in the 1970s. It failed to provide one then and it will still be talking about one well into the next century. A Scottish Parliament is not on the agenda, but single-tier government is—and I approve of that.
  I have consistently welcomed single-tier government and that approach was reflected in my comments during the run-up to the last general election. I stated that my aim was the abolition of Strathclyde regional council. At a meeting of Ayrshire chamber of commerce, my political opponents stressed that that was their aim, too. Scottish National, Liberal and Labour opponents wanted to get rid of Strathclyde regional council.
  Dr. Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he is a fair-minded man. He mentioned his opposition to Strathclyde regional council. I will not ask him the hard question, which is what it did wrong. As the Secretary of State made disparaging remarks earlier about Strathclyde regional council, I will ask the hon. Gentleman the easy question. Will he name any Secretary of State for Scotland since 1945, Labour or Tory, who had the broad support, democratic legitimacy and backing of more people than any leader of Strathclyde council—from Dick Stewart and Charlie Gray to Bob Goud today? Even though the hon. Gentleman may not

  1019
  agree with them, they had and have more democratic backing than any Secretary of State of any party. Will the hon. Gentleman answer without the advice of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who is briefing him?
  Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind initial comment. I accept that there has been strong backing for the conveners of Strathclyde regional council, but the boundaries do not reflect in any way local wishes or aspirations of people outside central Glasgow. That is the opinion also of many constituents to whom I have spoken recently.
  Mr. Foulkes: I am one of the hon Gentleman's constituents.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Did my hon. Friend vote for him?
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend's question requires no reply.
  The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) spoke of the legitimacy and popularity of Strathclyde regional council. Earlier, he implied that the Government had paid no attention to the results of consultations. Will he confirm that the vast majority of people consulted in Ayrshire—including the chamber of commerce and Enterprise Ayrshire—were in favour of an all-Ayrshire authority? Few people, and only Tories, were in favour of Kyle and Carrick and no one supported an authority comprising Cumnock and Doon Valley, Cunninghame, and Kilmarnock and Loudoun. That is an invention of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Gallie: I will respond to that point later.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members should show a little patience. I will respond.
  My right hon.Friend the Secretary of State listened to the wishes of the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in trying to bring their areas together. He listened also to voices in my constituency and to me and I applaud that. It is democracy in action.
  Nevertheless, we should seek to establish local authorities that recognise local needs and aspirations, whose elected councillors can be seen to be accountable to the electorate and whose administration will be judged on the performance of those councils. We do not want local authorities established on the basis of a state-given right to operate according to ideology and habit. In the central belt of Scotland, that is precisely the situation now.
  We heard much from Opposition Members today about democracy and involvement. In the majority of cases across central Scotland, councillors are selected not by the choice of voters but by small cabals within the Labour party—by constituency organisations with, no doubt, considerable trade union input. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is well aware of that.
  It is not just council candidates who are selected by such cabals, because they select also committee conveners—
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggests that local authority candidates
  1020
  are selected by cabals. Perhaps he will explain how the proposals will change that. Also, what kind of cabal selected the hon. Gentleman as a parliamentary candidate?
  Mr. Gallie: The party organisation in constituencies such as that which I serve presents a candidate to the electorate, but ultimately the electorate do not vote according to ideology and habit but on the case that is presented to them. They are offered alternatives. My right hon. Friend's proposals address that important option.
  Labour wants to protect party interests. It is not interested in democracy but in the power of the party—a truly socialist tradition. The local government debate has for a long time concentrated on that aspect and it is time for change. That change is reflected by my right hon. Friend's proposals, which recognise that local interests must at all times be to the fore.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley referred to the representations made by Ayrshire. I remind him of his own previous comments—particularly those about Enterprise Ayrshire, which he accused of concentrating mainly on Irvine and Kilmarnock interests. If we opted for an all-Ayrshire authority, it would be dominated by Irvine, Kilmarnock and—probably—Cumnock influences. That would not be good for my constituents in Kyle and Carrick.
  Most of those consulted about the proposals have stressed the need to consider the local aspects. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken that on board in Ayrshire's case. Let me, however, raise three specific points with him. First. I received a letter today from a group purporting to represent the interests of children's education in Glasgow. That group fears that nursery education will cease to exist following the demise of Strathclyde regional council. In Kyle and Carrick, one nursery school must serve 80 per cent. of my constituents. If that represents good service from Strathclyde region, I look forward to the day when we in Kyle and Carrick can take on our own responsibilities.
  I have some sympathy for my former colleagues in Cunninghame, North. The north coast of Cunninghame was always alienated from Strathclyde and, to some extent, from Irvine. I know that my right hon. Friend intends to meet local councillors in the not-too-distant future; I hope that he will accommodate them, but I fear that, if he does, Opposition Members will simply accuse him of gerrymandering.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is he seriously suggesting that, when the Secretary of State meets Tories from the north of my constituency, he will reach an accommodation that will satisfy their specific wishes without taking account of the wider concerns of all north Ayrshire—and, indeed, of all those who are to be lumped in with the crazy authority of that name, which will stretch all the way to Auchinleck and other areas? Will the hon. Gentleman adopt a less parochial outlook and recommend an all-Ayrshire solution, based either on a single council or the existing districts? He cannot make sensible pleas for Tories in the north of my constituency without presenting a more general format. In saying that, I speak for people across the political board in my constituency.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Such long interventions prevent other Opposition Members from speaking.
  Mr. Gallie: I speak for my constituents and their right to a voice in local government. They need to be able to influence their councillors and to take account of their actions. It is up to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) to decide how best to represent the interests of his constituents. I understand that he has argued for an all-Ayrshire authority in the past, but perhaps I am wrong: perhaps he has argued for the retention of Strathclyde region. I leave him to look after his own interests, but I am aware of anxieties in a part of his constituency with which I have a great affiliation.
  My third point involves community councils. [Interruption.] I have given way on a number of occasions, allowing my own time to be used by others in lengthy interventions. Hon. Members will just have to listen to the rest of my speech.
  The Government are considering extending the involvement of community councils in planning and licensing. That is a great step forward for local democracy. Members of community councils do a grand job in looking after local interests and their voices should be heard. The need for funds for such councils should also be considered.
  I believe that the Secretary of State's proposal for three public authorities to deal with water is well worth implementing. It will fulfil all our requirements, providing high quality, constant volume and lower costs in the long term. In recent years, Strathclyde region has ignored Ayrshire's sewerage needs time and again; I trust that, following the establishment of the new public authorities, those needs will be given appropriate priority and Ayrshire will have a proper sewerage system.
  Many of my constituents have complained about the link between water charges and the new council tax banding valuations. I hope that, with the new structure, different charging arrangements will be introduced.
  6.5 pm
  Mrs. Irene Adams: I promised my hon. Friends to speak for no longer than five mintues. The fact that I have had to listen to 20 minutes of drivel from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) reflects the current imbalance in the House: 11 Conservative Members can take up all the time, while 62 Opposition Members must scramble for the few minutes that remain.
  The Government's proposals do not surprise me. After all, at the last election they asked the Scottish people to vote for them if they supported the status quo. Only 25 per cent. of Scottish voters did so; 75 per cent. said, "No—we do not support the status quo."
  The Government chose to ignore that 75 per cent., just as they ignore everything else that matters. They do so at their peril: they are now endangering democracy in Scotland. Their manifesto contained no proposals for water privatisation, but it was the first thing they mentioned when they returned to power. The Scottish people will not be fooled by the way in which privatisation is being introduced through the back door.
  I defend Strathclyde regional council. It irked the Government because it got it right. The Government should ask people in the former Tory counties—in the old Renfrewshire and Argyllshire areas—about the condition of their roads before Strathclyde region was invented. They should go up to the islands, and ask people in Colonsay what social service provision was like when Argyll controlled the council. Strathclyde has been
  1022
  efficient and successful; it has given services to areas that never had them before. The Government have opposed the council because it was democratically elected.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) asked about the power of the Secretary of State. A Tory Secretary of State for Scotland was last elected with a majority in 1955. Strathclyde convenors have all been elected with vast majorities, as have those of Renfrew district council.
  Apparently, Renfrew district council is not big enough to be the sole authority, although the area contains 206,000 people. Down the road, Greenock—in the Inverclyde district—contains 93,000, but apparently it is not big enough either. A new council representing 88,000 people is now being proposed for Eastwood: apparently Eastwood is big enough. The other council represents a population of 256,000, including—funnily enough—four elected Labour Members of Parliament. The proposed Eastwood council has one Tory Member of Parliament. What has the Secretary of State for Scotland done to justify that? He has taken poor old Barrhead, which has never voted for the Tories, and lumped it into Tory Eastwood.
  The Secretary of State has also taken the only Tory ward—Ralston—from my constituency and put it into Eastwood. He will have a job on his hands when he tries to justify to the people of Ralston why their children will no longer be able to go to Paisley grammar school.
  When the grammar school issue last raised its ugly head the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), was there, right out in front, telling people that he had the right to speak because children from his constituency went to Paisley grammar school. But it will be in a different council authority. Paisley grammar school will have to take children from Greenock, Wemyss Bay, Gourock and Erskine before it is allowed to take children from Ralston.
  If that is not the case, can the Under-Secretary tell us what new financial arrangements will be made to allow council boundaries to be crossed so that children from Ralston can go to Paisley grammar school? The people of Paisley, Greenock and the surrounding areas pay for these services. Is the Under-Secretary telling us that they will have to pay for children from Eastwood to go to the grammar school, while children from Ralston, who live not half a mile away from Paisley grammar school, have to go to school in Barrhead? There is no direct bus link from Barrhead to Ralston.
  According to the Secretary of State's proposals, the people of Ralston will have to look to Eastwood for all their services. If a street light is broken, they will have to go six miles to Eastwood and ask the council to fix it. But there is no direct bus service from Ralston to Eastwood.
  There is no geographical or historic reasons for setting up the Renfrewshire councils. Half the areas that have been taken in were part of the old Renfrewshire county council, but so was Renfrew. Renfrew, though, votes Labour, so it is not going into the new Eastwood council. It is staying with the other council. The only reason for all this is political gerrymandering—setting up a Tory safe haven in Eastwood to protect the hon. Member for Eastwood.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Brian Donohoe: I am absolutely opposed to the Secretary of State for Scotland's proposal to reform Scottish local government, as outlined in "Shaping the Future—The New Councils." This is the latest episode in a systematic and concerted attack on the powers of Scottish local government which began when the Tories first came to power in 1979.
  It must have been a surprise to anyone reading the document to find that the Secretary of State had committed himself to setting up effective and efficient local authorities. For any council to be effective and efficient, it requires, first, powers to initiate change that have not been emasculated by central Government. Secondly, it requires money so that it can provide efficient services to the public whom it is meant to serve. After 14 years of Tory Government, Scottish local authorities are neither effective nor efficient.
  Despite the Secretary of State's assurances in the White Paper, Scottish councils will see their powers further eroded by any reform of local government that is initiated by a Tory document and presided over by a Tory Secretary of State with a hidden agenda which still, even after all his announcements, includes water privatisation and the extension of compulsory competitive tendering. The Tories' hidden agenda is still very much in being. Nothing that was said last week takes away from the fact that the Tories still intend to privatise Scottish water.
  The major criticism of the Government concerns the wholly undemocratic way in which the reorganisation has been carried out—not by a commission, as in England and Wales, but by the Secretary of State and his cronies on the Treasury Bench. He has ignored the repeatedly expressed demand of the Scottish people for an assembly. He has compounded that error by denying the Scottish people at least a quasi-independent commission to determine the structure of Scotland's local government. The only area of change allowed for in the document is to be found in paragraph 1·4 which states that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland will be able to review the boundaries if an anomaly arises.
  I urge the Government to look at Ayrshire, for a start. How is it possible, according to that document, to have a north Ayrshire and a south Ayrshire when Skelmorlie in the north is in the same authority as Loch Doon? It is utter nonsense. It is hardly surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke as he did earlier.
  The financial implications of the Secretary of State's reforms are so highly subjective as to be meaningless in any serious analysis of the proposed changes. Any reform of local government, even the abolition of Strathclyde regional council, which the Secretary of State has decided on, will result in the additional expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers' money in the midst of an economic recession.
  In the House the other night, Tory Members of Parliament said that the Government are bankrupt. The White Paper makes it clear that the Scottish Office, too, is bankrupt of ideas.
  The implications of the proposals are that there will be job losses in areas where jobs are already in short supply. It is wrong to use local authority employees as political footballs. Any reform of local government based on the Secretary of State's proposals will, by its very nature,
  1024
  create democratic deficits in the accountability of many existing local government functions. A reduction in the number of local authority units will result in decisions being taken further away from, not closer to, the people.
  That unaccountability will be made worse by the inevitable introduction of joint boards and quangos, whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State, who has announced that the police, fire and water authorities in Strathclyde are to cover the same geographical area. Why does he not consider setting up a second tier of local government to cover those functions, which would then be the responsibility of directly elected representatives? What is wrong with that?
  Those who are appointed will not be democratically elected councillors. They will be given only the power that the Secretary of State decides that they ought to have, according to his vision of Scottish local government. The proposals will further erode the already limited powers that Scottish local authorities have used to protect their people from the worst excesses of successive Tory Governments.
  My reasons for opposing any change in the structure of Scottish local government are clear. The cost and the disruption that will be caused cannot be justified. The face of local government in Scotland will be changed for ever.
  To be more specific, what will happen to the wind-up programme for the new towns in the area that I represent? In my case, that factor is critical to the well-being of Irvine new town. When will the Secretary of State answer that important question? Why is that subject not addressed in the consultative document? It is not in the White Paper at all and that is wrong.
  Any reforms will simply be perceived by the Scottish people as political navel-watching at a time when the real problems in the country should be addressed. There are 300,000 unemployed in Scotland and thousands of homeless, yet the Government have decided to review local authorities.
  Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman had 20 minutes—I have only 10 minutes.
  Any review of Scottish local government must be undertaken in conjunction with the establishment of a local Scottish Parliament. Without that underlying principle, any reform of Scottish local government will certainly be temporary. The Secretary of State should understand that.
  The Scottish people have repeatedly voted yes for reform and how we are governed. However, in voting yes, they reject the Tory philosophy completely. I reject the proposals, as do the majority of those who responded to the consultation. I reject the need for any reform in Scotland at present.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Secretary of State for Scotland has attacked the Strathclyde region on several occasions. He should remember that there are many dedicated men and women who have served Strathclyde region since it was created by a Tory Government. He did not complain too much about Strathclyde regional council when he used it to gather the

  1025
  poll tax. He let that local authority take the brunt of the abusive attacks caused by the Government. At the end of the day, they had to do a U-turn.
  The Secretary of State should also remember that welfare rights officers were appointed in Strathclyde region to protect the poor and those who needed protection. Many men and women in my constituency got a great deal of benefit from the advice given by those officers. Some of them were former soldiers who gave six years of their lives and did not see their friends come back. They were denied their right to services of Government Departments until Strathclyde stepped in. [Interruption.] I wish the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) would shut up. I listened to his speech—he said absolutely nothing. His constituents would he ashamed of what he said. The more he opens his mouth, the more he puts his big foot in it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) made a good point about Argyll. I was a full-time union officer in Argyll when Strathclyde took over. It was clear to me that the workers in Argyll had had to suffer at the hands of Argyll council, which was a penny-pinching authority and denied the workers their basic rights. Some of the workers had no protective clothing. The road men had no bothies in which to store their tools—they had to store them in their homes. Many of the workers said that they were glad that a Strathclyde union was coming in because they would at least get national wages and conditions and many were able to go on and be promoted. Under Strathclyde, people who worked in Dunoon were able to get promotions in places such as Greenock, Paisley and Glasgow.
  It is easy for me to have a go at Strathclyde region. But if—God forbid—these proposals get through the House, some people will say, "I wish that Strathclyde was back again".
  Reference was made to Tories objecting to these proposals. I am proud that I served on Glasgow district council before I came here. John Young was a councillor on that council. He was a leading Tory—no one could say that he did not defend the Tory party on that council. Lo and behold—John Young is a Glaswegian who has a great love for the city of Glasgow, and the Secretary of State cannot deny that as soon as the Tory proposals came out, John Young was one of the first to say that they are absolute rubbish.
  Let us examine the accusation of gerrymandering. No matter what we call it, it is ludicrous when people who live in the Toryglen area will have to go to Hamilton for their services, although some of them live nearer the city chambers than I do. The Secretary of State will say that I am wrong about that because at one time Toryglen was not in the city of Glasgow.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Martin: I will not give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. McAvoy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to give way to an hon. Member who has knowledge of his own constituency, of which the other hon. Member has no knowledge?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman is well aware that it is for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Martin: This is not simply another hon. Member's constituency. The White Paper says that the proposal is for the city of Glasgow. I am entitled to comment on a proposal that will take a place that has been part of Glasgow for a long time—Toryglen—and put it into south Lanarkshire. The logic of the Minister's argument is that at one time Toryglen did not belong to Glasgow. Springburn, Keppochhill and Maryhill did not belong to Glasgow at one time. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) does not belong to Glasgow—he stays outside it. Perhaps if he came in, we would get more population. We need a decent population in the city of Glasgow if we are to stay in a city that gives employment to most of the constituents of my hon. Friend.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I well understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) because of his experience in local government. When we look at the empty Conservative Benches, there are few Tories because the Scottish electorate rejected them.
  As we heard in an earlier ruling from the Speaker, at the end of the day the customs and conventions of the House and the English majority will force the proposals through against the wishes of the Scottish people. The Tories cannot get the democratic mandate of the Scottish people, so they use this manoeuvre to force through their policies, which the Scottish people vote against, and deny Scottish democracy. We should be trying to restore that democracy.
  Local government provides a wide range of essential daily services through its councillors and elected officials. It fulfils a highly democratic function in our society by allowing people to participate in local decisions. It also provides a vast pool of expertise and professional, trained, qualified and experienced staff giving a proven service to our local communities.
  Scottish local government has a proud record over the centuries for supplying services to our local communities and that is precisely what is at stake in the White Paper. The Secretary of State for Scotland has served his country well and, undoubtedly, England will be suitably pleased with him. However, Scotland has nothing to be pleased about.
  This short debate is only one small protest in what will surely be an ongoing debate for days and years against the Government's political chicanery. I will be brief but my anger goes deeper than this debate will allow. From the poll tax fiasco to Rosyth and Ravenscraig, the Tory roll of shame in Scotland is long and the Government have the gall to add this political deceit to it.
  The Government's plans are irretrievably rushed. There has been no real consultation on these fundamental changes. [Interruption.] If this rabble would shut up, they might learn about the Labour party's record in Government. There is an obvious contrast between the royal commission in 1969, followed by legislation in 1973, and the condensed timetable offered by this Government. In fact, the previous review of local government started in

  1027
  1963. It took a total of 10 years from the commencement of the review to the final enactment of legislation. The Scottish Office published its present consultation paper in October 1992 and invited submissions up to January 1993.
  Wheatley undertook visits, held meetings and seminars with academics and experts, and placed public notices in the press inviting both oral and written evidence. He commissioned studies and even had an intelligence unit aiding the previous reform of local government. All that suggests that that remit was taken very seriously. If the previous reform took over 10 years to gestate and then failed, what serious chance has the present rushed reform of lasting anything like the 20 years of the previous reorganisation?
  There has been no attempt to match communities to the new local government units, which are merely political conveniences for the discredited Tory party. The English get a commission, the Scots get gerrymandering. Like the poll tax, Scotland once more will be the Government's guinea pig. There has been no attempt truly to involve local government officials or the public or councillors before the structure of the proposed change was decided by central Government.
  The Government's proposals are fundamentally flawed. There has been no community of interest locally between Kincardine and Angus, or between Perthshire and Angus. There has been no community of interest through employment or through local government practice. The proposals have been introduced irrespective of past and present work, or social and historical patterns. That approach is being mirrored throughout the country; the proposals are for the pure political convenience of the Tory party and not the result of the will or wish of the people.
  The previous Scottish local government reform, which was given all the promises that we have heard from the Government tonight, lasted less than 20 years. Before that, reforms lasted for 50 or even 100 years. The new reform looks as though it will last even less time than the 1973 reform, because of the way in which it has been introduced and because of its substance.
  The rush to legislate simply guarantees a period of instability, unemployment and the disruption of daily services. The Government have clearly forgotten the cost of chaos and the reality of running parallel authorities from the past local government reform. Why should the reform occur through silly gerrymandering and an effort to govern by deceit?
  The Scottish people clearly rejected the Tories at previous elections, yet the Government are now inflicting those rejected policies and philosophy through a series of unelected and publicly unaccountable quangos. There has been an attempt to bypass the democratic process in Scotland. The boundaries have not been agreed and discussed with local communities, but are simply a civil service solution produced under the direction of the Tory party.
  The local service proposals are the ultimate sell-out. They represent privatisation through the back door with stealth, through the creation of an unelected, unaccountable quango. The Tories who were rejected by the electorate are now ruling Scotland by a whole series of such unelected and unaccountable quangos—the opposite of democracy.
  The process by which the Government issue a consultative document, only then promptly to ignore the
  1028
  results, is also the opposite of democracy. They prefer proposals that are overwhelmingly rejected by the Scottish people. Public pressure has forced a retreat from outright privatisation of water, as the Government originally wanted, but that has resulted in privatisation by two sips rather than one gulp. Scots want local-government-run water services, not the quango-controlled system nominated by and under the direction of the Secretary of State.
  I noticed that the Secretary of State was careful to give us absolutely no details of what the legislation will entail. I hope that he changes that by telling us what was in the Quayle-Munro report and exactly what the Government have in mind.
  Every customer in Scotland will await price rises, existing staff can expect disruption and redundancies, and we shall get all that is unnecessary and unwanted in both local government and water services.
  The local government restructuring is different in kind and nature. There has been no real consultation, no royal commission, and no cross-party consensus, except among the people who opposed it. I reject with disgust the gerrymandered boundary reorganisation and the theft of Scotland's water resources. I seek in its place a strong, autonomous local government system, based on true local communities and founded after close consultation with those communities.
  Any review must meet three important criteria. Scotland must receive equal treatment. If there is a commission in England, there must be something similar in Scotland. There must be maximum consultation that reflects the views of the Scottish people, and there must be democratic control over education, police and fire which must not be switched to central Government quangos.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Welsh: No. The hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman wishes to wind up.
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is winding us all up.
  Mr. Welsh: It is a pity that the hon. Member is not wound up by what I am saying.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding great difficulty in hearing the hon. Member for Angus, East.
  Mr. Welsh: May I say to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) who is trying to intervene, and to all the hon. Members making a racket behind me, that it is no use going through the motions of having photo calls outside 10 Downing street. Scotland expects more than that. That technique failed for Rosyth, it failed for Ravenscraig, and it will fail again because of the nature of the House. It is time that the Labour party joined others to ensure that Scottish views prevail.
  Scotland has every right to feel betrayed by the Government's botched, unfair and undemocratic proposals. It is time that Scots united to ensure that the proposals are defeated.
  6.38 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: We do not need any lectures from the Scottish National party about defending Scotland's interest in the Chamber. May I

  1029
  remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour party has 49 Scottish seats and the SNP has a miserable three seats, and its work rate is nothing to commend it?
  The Secretary of State today treated local government in Scotland with maximum contempt. It was a disgraceful speech that did not address the key issues. It was a knockabout speech, at a time when we deserve to know why some of the decisions in the White Paper were made. More importantly, why is the Secretary of State willing to ride on the back of the rantings of his Back Benchers over Monklands? He knows that he has the power to set up an inquiry. He should either put up or shut up on that issue.
  The debate has exposed the organised hypocrisy masquerading as government in Scotland, and it has explained why the Conservatives are so deeply unpopular there. Only a rump of Tory Members, led by a ragbag of Tory Ministers, could have produced such a dog's breakfast and called it a reform. The reform of local government is irrelevant to the needs of Scottish people, damaging to the people who depend on its services and dismissive of democracy.
  The Secretary of State must shoulder much of the responsibility for the mess. Why is he plumbing new depths of political dishonesty? Why is he unwilling to distinguish between the interests of the Conservative party and the interests of the country? The democratic credentials of the Secretary of State now lie in tatters. He failed in Rosyth, he has failed in local government and he has failed on the issue of water. How many failures does he need to have before he reconsiders his position?
  Much of the debate has concentrated on the Tories and their gerrymandering of boundaries. We have heard pathetic excuses that the proposed action is not gerrymandering, but good government. We know that, if there is an Operation Safe Haven and the only real people who are consulted are Tory Members, one ends up with a gerrymandered map of Scotland, which carries with it all the responsibility of the governing party.
  The key question is what criteria were used to gerrymander the boundaries of East Renfrewshire, Berwickshire, East Lothian and Stirling. Did they use history, geography, culture or a bit of economics? The criterion was simply the vested interests of the crew on the Government Benches, who could not care about the wishes of Scottish people and who will now do everything from that base position of 16 per cent. to win any credibility they can.
  We hear the Government lecture us about the vested interests in local government. They mean the 300,000 employees who, every day of the week, provide some of the best services in Europe. If that is a vested interest, I and my colleagues will speak up for them. If our councillors, who do such sterling work, are another vested interest, I have no doubt that I and my colleagues will be willing to stand up and be counted. What is utterly disgraceful is that the Tory party stands up for its own vested interest and is unconcerned about what is happening around it.
  This debate is a watershed in Scottish politics since 1929, because we have never in that period had a major reform of local government which has smacked of contempt and of a lack of concern for those who are the beneficiaries of the service. We know that there is no case.
  1030
  What is the justification for this massive upheaval? There is no consensus. How on earth can the reforms endure? My hon. Friends have made the point that one cannot sustain the reforms without a consensus in which every political party and every section of Scotland is committed to them. No one will be committed to the proposals. They will not endure, because the Government have ignored the basic tenet of democratic politics, which is to arrive at a consensus. If there is no consensus, my hon. Friends will not be committed to the proposals. The proposals will have no credibility, and the people of Scotland will have little confidence in proposals that do not have that consensus.
  My hon. Friends have raised the question of a commission. Even the English have a commission. Why has the Secretary of State declined to give the Scots a commission? Why will the Government not put the matter to an independent test—to an independent commission? We should be happy to contribute proposals to such a commission. Why does the Secretary of State not do the same? We know the reason. The proposals will introduce a corrupted map of local government. The proposals are all about the Conservative party, and if they were exposed to the light of an independent commission, they would simply be shown up for what they are.
  The other key issue raised by the proposals is constitutional change. If we had a Scottish Parliament sitting in Scotland—
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: You will not have.
  Mr. McLeish: We will.
  If we had a Scottish Parliament, Scots would be allowed to look at their own boundaries sensibly and sensitively, and they would be able to draw up a future that they wanted—not a future that satisfied the Conservative party, but a future that would take local government into the next century and would carry on the proud tradition of the previous 100 years.
  If there is one part of the proposals that smacks not only of gerrymandering but of manipulation, it is the section dealing with costs. The Government have brought comic farce to financial accounting in the proposals. The Government took on Touche Ross. The National Audit Office in Scotland is now interested in carrying out a study into why £50,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on such a flawed exercise. The first exercise came up with transitional costs and on-going costs over five years, but the Government did not allow that. It was suggested that there might not be any savings, but that there would be substantial costs.
  What did the Government do? They went back to Touche Ross and the civil servants, and came up not with a five-year period, but with a 15-year period. They paraded around at the weekend saying that they would save £1 billion up to the year 2010. Why not 3010, in which case the figure would be £6 billion? Why not 4010, in which case the figure would be £12 billion? What an utter absurdity. The fact that we have been asked to participate in discussions on the White Paper on the basis of those bogus figures is a scandal of massive proportions. We dispute the figures for savings, because there will be none.
  There is no disguising the fact that, in the next three years, £200 million of costs will be incurred. Where will the money come from? It will not come from the Treasury. The money will come from services being cut and from the

  1031
  council tax being increased. Will the Minister tell Scotland that our present council tax levels will be safe in Tory hands when the reforms take place? They will not be, because the council tax and cuts in service will pay for this collective madness.
  A lobby is here today. We want the Secretary of State and his Ministers to reassure the 300,000 Scots who work in the service about their future. We want those workers to know, unlike the workers at Rosyth, that they have a future, that they will not simply be disregarded. Who on earth believes that only 2,200 people will leave the service over the next few years? Again I ask the Secretary of State for a reassurance for servants who have made a valuable contribution to the quality of life in Scotland. All the proposals add up to no case at all.
  What about services? We have heard much talk about all-purpose authorities. Those all-purpose authorities will be multi-purpose authorities, because there will be a degree of centralisation unprecedented in Scottish politics. There will be commercialisation and then joint committees. Struggling beneath that will be the so-called "all-purpose" authorities. That is astonishing. They certainly will not be all-purpose authorities as the Government pretend.
  If there is one issue above all others on which contempt has been heaped, it is the discussion about water. Many of my hon. Friends have made the point that we are at a halfway house towards ultimate privatisation. That is clear. We shall have three boards. Why three? No one has given us a reason why there should be three. Why not have six, or one? No details are given in the three paragraphs out of the 30 pages.
  We are being softened up for the privatisation of water. The first step is centralisation, which will be followed by privatisation. No Conservative Member will mention the F-word—franchising. The word does not appear in the White Paper. Why not? There is no escaping the conclusion that the Government are moving surely and steadily towards the sell-off of Scottish water. It may not happen next year, but that is their intention. Scotland will not be fooled by the utterances and bogus reassurances it has received from Ministers.
  If all of that was not bad enough, there is the point, which many of my hon. Friends have made, about the democratic deficit. Deep down in the debate is the question of costs and the question of consensus, but there is also the fundamental question of democracy. Democracy is being undermined by services being transferred to the marketplace and to the Scottish Office.
  We are seeing an attack on the balance between local and central Government which is essential to the constitution. We are seeing a system being corrupted, and being made more unstable and more vulnerable to commercialisation and privatisation. We in Scotland are proud of our deep sense of security and our deep sense of collective provision, which are in danger of being abandoned irreversibly by the Government.
  The proposals are unwanted, unnecessary, undemocratic and uniquely irrelevant to the people of Scotland. They deserve no support in the House, and we will certainly not support them. We will oppose them at every opportunity.
  6.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): We have had a most enjoyable debate. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)—I shall come to his more serious points later—continued his customary rant and scaremongering. I shall deal at the outset with his point about local authority staff. We estimate that reorganisation could lead to a reduction in total staff numbers of 1 per cent. That is against a background in which local authority staff in Scotland last year increased by 2 per cent., which puts the matter into context.
  A number of positive points have been made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) pointed out that every group leader in the city wanted a single-tier system and wanted the city of Aberdeen to be a single-tier authority. My hon. Friend asked the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for an apology to the city of Aberdeen; an apology has not been received.
  Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister accept the challenge that I offered the Secretary of State? He keeps referring to Monklands. He has the power to set up an independent inquiry. Will he put up or shut up?
  Mr. Stewart: I thought I was talking about Aberdeen, but I can express some hope for the hon. Member's interest in Monklands. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is interested in serving on the Standing Committee, and no doubt his extensive researches on Scottish local government will be available to hon. Members.
  Several hon. Members: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: Not at the moment.
  My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the accusation of gerrymandering in relation to—
  Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that the Minister has sought to pre-empt the work of the Committee of Selection, and has done so by referring to matters that are clearly extraneous to the contents of any Bill. I hope that you will draw the matter to the attention of the Committee of Selection.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is responsible for his own speech, and no Standing Committee is involved in this debate. [Interruption.] Order. So far, I have had great difficulty hearing what the Minister has had to say.
  Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that Opposition Members will give me the chance to develop my speech. I repeat that I said that I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover might be interested in serving on the Committee. That does not pre-empt any decision of the Committee of Selection or of anyone else.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South rightly answered the charge that the Government are somehow gerrymandering through the proposal to bring Westhill into the city of Aberdeen. He rightly pointed out that Westhill does not have a single Conservative councillor at either regional or district level, so that accusation cannot be sustained.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) reminded us of the importance of

  1033
  rural areas. He underlined the common sense of the proposals in the White Paper that city authorities should be surrounded by strong rural authorities where the interests were quite different.
  My hon. Friend expressed his concern about particular boundaries, as did a number of Opposition Members. Frankly, it would be surprising if the Government produced a set of proposals on boundaries which received immediate and universal acclaim, because people differ.
  Mr. Wallace: I think the Minister accepted that there has not been exactly total acclaim for all the boundaries that he has proposed. What level of opposition will he take account of in amending boundaries? What size of petition and what kind of opposition will he take as evidence that what he is proposing is unacceptable to a local community?
  Mr. Stewart: First, we have had a period of consultation. Secondly, that will be a matter for Parliament to decide. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there can be legitimate differences of view on boundaries, but my right hon. Friend and I will take seriously the points that are made to us in the Committee.
  Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that the regional ward of Kings Park Toryglen, which it is recommended should be included in south Lanarkshire, is more than 50 per cent. Rutherglen and Lanarkshire area and more than 50 per cent. Rutherglen and Lanarkshire population? Bearing in mind his last statement, will the Minister also assure me that he will accept it from me, as the Member of Parliament for Toryglen, that I want that area to remain part of the city of Glasgow, where it has always been and should stay?
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I assure him that we shall listen to people such as himself when there is a constituency question. Then we will consider whether appropriate changes need to be made during the passage of the Bill—
  Mr. David Marshall: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No. I have given way a number of times, and I have to sit down in a few minutes.
  I welcome the excellent speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) made on behalf of his constituents, in which he pointed out the importance and relevance of the Government's proposals for the best interests of his constituents. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) would pay a tribute to the council that he represents, which is generally recognised to be—
  Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My colleagues and I wish to object that we have not been able to put our point of view to the Secretary of State about our objection to the inclusion of Toryglen in our area.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that as many hon. Members as possible have been called in the time available.
  Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the Committee of Selection will choose the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for the Committee, and he will doubtless have many hours to put forward his point of view.
  I had hoped that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland would say that—on the basis of his experience as a constituency Member—although he might disagree with some of the boundaries proposed by the Government, there was a strong case for single-tier authorities.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: No.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) is remonstrating. I will give way to her if she wishes. She walked out of the Chamber last Thursday, throwing the White Paper back to the Secretary of State—I am grateful for that, because we are running low on copies. The White Paper implements the views of Argyll and Bute for a single-tier authority based on Argyll and Bute.
  Mrs. Michie: The Minister should know from our submissions to the Secretary of State that the Scottish Liberal Democrats have always been in favour of single-tier local authorities, but with a Scottish Parliament. [Laughter.] If Conservative Members care to read the submission, they will understand why.
  While the Minister is talking about Argyll and Bute, I welcome the fact that it is to be a single-tier local authority, but it will be interesting to see the result of putting Helensburgh, which has no historical link with Argyll, into that area.
  Mr. Stewart: The independent council and polls in the Helensburgh area are overwhelmingly in favour of that.
  We turn next—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I regret that I cannot give way. I have only three or four minutes left.
  I turn next to the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) says that there is no support for the Government's proposals. I refer him to the following statement in The Press and Journal of 30 June:
  "I will be very pleased if, as the information available indicates, the council will be retained."
  His hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) made that statement. She clearly supports what the White Paper proposes.
  Mr. Welsh rose—
  Mr. Stewart: I cannot give way.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Stewart: I have given way on several occasions. The hon. Member for Monklands, West refused to give way.
  The hon. Member for Fife, Central is normally meticulous in his research on such matters, and he mentioned costs. I was surprised that he did not refer to the submission from his regional council. Perhaps I should remind him of what that submission said.
  Mr. McLeish indicated dissent.
  Mr. Stewart: Has the hon. Gentleman not read the submission of his own council'? Dear me, that is not very good. It strongly supported the retention of the kingdom of Fife, and that Labour regional council argued that a single-tier Fife council would produce annual savings of £4·9 million, as opposed to transitional costs of £5·5 million. It argued that the total savings over a longer period would be more than £42 million at net present value.
  Those are not the Government's figures, but figures produced by a Labour authority which is going to continue in the single-tier system. That is a good example of how much nonsense has been talked by Opposition Members. When they consult their local councillors in a number of areas, they will find that many Labour councillors, such as the convener of Fife, support what the Government are saying. Does the hon. Member want to hear what he said? The hon. Gentleman will find a constructive response from the councils in Central region, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, in marked contrast to the slogans that we have heard from hon. Members today. We do not know whether the Labour party wants a commission or whether it will reverse the proposals, if elected. The Labour party has no policy; we have the policies. I commend the Government amendment to the House.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister says that he does not know whether the Opposition support a commission. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty hearing what hon. Members have to say. If we cannot hear in this Chair, we cannot conduct the business properly. I call Mr. Tom Clarke, and I hope that it is a point of order.
  Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he was not aware whether the Opposition supported a commission. May I through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, point out that it is clear in the motion before the House that we do indeed support a commission?
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 316.

  Division No. 333]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Blair, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Blunkett, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Bradley, Keith

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Byers, Stephen

  Battle, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Benton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cann, Jamie

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  1036

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Coffey, Ann

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Corbett, Robin

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jamieson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Janner, Greville

  Cox, Tom

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jowell, Tessa

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Khabra, Piara S.

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

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

  Dixon, Don

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dobson, Frank

  Leighton, Ron

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fatchett, Derek

  McCartney, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McKelvey, William

  Fisher, Mark

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foulkes, George

  McWilliam, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  Madden, Max

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mahon, Alice

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Maxton, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meacher, Michael

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Gould, Bryan

  Milburn, Alan

  Graham, Thomas

  Miller, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gunnell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hain, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Mudie, George

  Harvey, Nick

  Mullin, Chris

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Murphy, Paul

  Henderson, Doug

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hoey, Kate

  Olner, William

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Home Robertson, John

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hood, Jimmy

  Patchett, Terry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pendry, Tom

  1037

  Pickthall, Colin

  Soley, Clive

  Pike, Peter L.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Pope, Greg

  Spellar, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Law'm E)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stott, Roger

  Prescott, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Straw, Jack

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Randall, Stuart

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Redmond, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Dr John

  Tyler, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Vaz, Keith

  Richardson, Jo

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Wallace, James

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Walley, Joan

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watson, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Salmond, Alex

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winnick, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Short, Clare

  Wray, Jimmy

  Simpson, Alan

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

  Tellers for the Ayes:

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

  Mr. Eric Illsley and Mr. Alan Meale.

  Snape, Peter

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butler, Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Churchill, Mr

  Atkins, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Colvin, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Congdon, David

  Bates, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Beggs, Roy

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bendall, Vivian

  Couchman, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Body, Sir Richard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Booth, Hartley

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bowis, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Graham

  Duncan, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dunn, Bob

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Eggar, Tim

  1038

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, Sir David

  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

  Leigh, Edward

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lidington, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lightbown, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Luff, Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garnier, Edward

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Malone, Gerald

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mans, Keith

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marland, Paul

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marlow, Tony

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorst, John

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Milligan, Stephen

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mills, Iain

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hannam, Sir John

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hawkins, Nick

  Needham, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hicks, Robert

  Norris, Steve

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Horam, John

  Page, Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

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

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Pawsey, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pickles, Eric

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jack, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jessel, Toby

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Richards, Rod

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Key, Robert

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Knapman, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  1039

  Sackville, Tom

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Thurnham, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tracey, Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tredinnick, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Trend, Michael

  Shersby, Michael

  Trimble, David

  Sims, Roger

  Trotter, Neville

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Viggers, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Walden, George

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Waller, Gary

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Ward, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sproat, Iain

  Watts, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Wells, Bowen

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whitney, Ray

  Steen, Anthony

  Whittingdale, John

  Stephen, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stern, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stewart, Allan

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Sumberg, David

  Wilshire, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sykes, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wood, Timothy

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomason, Roy

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the White Paper "Shaping the Future—The New Councils"; and considers that its proposals will lead to better and more efficient local government in Scotland, based on a single tier of strong and accountable all-purpose authorities.

  Debt, Trade and Development
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting that the indebtedness of the Southern world now exceeds £1,000 billion, which both cripples their development and holds back economic growth in the Northern world, and noting the failure of the G7 Summit to agree any new significant programme of debt relief or to ensure any adequate place for developing countries in future world trading patterns via the GATT Uruguay Round, calls upon the Government to prepare a new British and international initiative for debt write-off for the poorest countries, and also to take the lead in setting out a trading framework which will ensure that developing countries can play their full share in the world trading system and will promote environmentally sound development.
  For the developing countries throughout the world, the G7 summit in Tokyo last week was not merely a disappointment; it was a cause for real despair. The situation in most of the third world, and certainly the poorest parts of it, is extremely serious and getting worse, not better. The G7 summit merely washed its hands of it.
  It is not simply that indebtedness in the southern world now exceeds the astronomic level of £1 trillion—£1,000 billion; it is rather that debt levels are not falling, but increasing at an accelerating rate. According to the World bank, the increase in indebtedness in the past two years alone has been nearly £300 billion, which is equal to almost half Britain's entire gross national product.
  It is not simply that the share in world trade of the poorest continent, Africa, has been falling over the past decade; it is rather that the protracted depression in world commodity prices, on which the poorest countries absolutely depend, makes their economic recovery impossible.
  It is not simply that aid-flows from western nations—most notably Britain—have fallen sharply over the past decade and are continuing to fall, with overall resource flows to sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the poorest part of the world, estimated at 8 per cent. lower last year than in 1989; it is much rather that the flow of funds has gone into reverse. The southern world now pays Britain more in debt repayments than it receives in aid, with a net inflow into the United Kingdom in 1990 of £2·5 billion.
  On all three counts—debt, trade and aid—the situation of the third world is clearly rapidly deteriorating and must now be a priority for international action. However, the indifference of the G7 summit to the steadily evolving disaster in the south, despite the fact that it also holds back recovery in the north, is matched only by the unreadiness of the British Government to deal effectively with any of those looming disasters.
  I take debt first and foremost as it is the most important. I make it clear that I commend the Prime Minister on his initiative as Chancellor in 1989 in proposing the Trinidad terms for a two thirds write-off of debts for some of the poorest countries. I say that without qualification. It was a very useful initiative. But we must put that in perspective. It has applied to only 14 countries.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): It applies to 17 countries. I shall clarify that later.
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the correction. That is a marginal and welcome improvement.
  The £1 billion write-off that it has secured, of which the United Kingdom's share is just £65 million, represents less than 0·1 per cent. of total third world debt. That puts it into perspective. Since the Prime Minister originally proposed it, £1 billion has been written off, but the total debt burden has increased by some £400 billion. The effect of the Prime Minister's initiative has, therefore, been extremely limited. No one could deny that. Some might say it has been infinitesimal. Indeed, the British Government have been far more concerned with paying money to British banks to protect them against possible default on their world debt than they have been to provide debt relief to third world countries. According to the Government's figures, between 1987 and 1992 the Government handed out £2·25 billion—more than the entire annual aid budget—in tax relief to United Kingdom banks against the possibility that debtor countries might default on their debt service obligations, although in fact they have not done so.
  As a result of the Finance Act 1986, British taxpayers have been forced to pay huge sums to bail the banks out of a crisis which, frankly, was partly of the banks own making, when not a penny of that money has been passed to third world countries to relieve their debt. We now have the totally indefensible situation in which the Government are heavily subsidising United Kingdom banks against possible debt default, and none of that money is helping the poverty-stricken indebted countries. Yet, as the Minister said in answer to one of my questions on 15 February, from 1987 to 1991
  "net payments to United Kingdom banks from developing countries over the last five years"—[Official Report, 15 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 5–6.]
  totalled £4·8 billion. That is an absolutely stunning figure. How can the Minister and the Government conceivably justify it? I do not know whether the Minister wishes to intervene to answer that. I do not want to go through what happened the other night, but I shall give him the opportunity to respond if he wishes to do so. He obviously does not wish to respond, but we will expect an answer later.
  Although the Trinidad terms make a tiny contribution, they do not begin to match the enormity of the problem. Over the past decade, Africa's debt has more than tripled from 28 per cent. of GNP to 109 per cent. In other words, Africa now owes more than its entire annual income. Many sub-Saharan countries, the poorest of all, and including those now embarking on post-war reconstruction and which need assistance, such as Mozambique, Ethiopia and Eritrea, owe three times their national incomes, or more. Zambia, for example, where the average wage is $300 a year, owes $1,000 in debt for every man, woman and child.
  When debt reaches those astronomical levels—and they are astronomical—it is patently unrepayable. Yet for the G7, including Britain, to ignore that not only snuffs out indefinitely the prospects for recovery for much of the southern world but undermines growth prospects and job opportunities for the northern world.
  For the past four years—I do not think that this statement needs qualification—the Government have done nothing new to deal with the mounting debt catastrophe. In trade, the G7, including Britain, is scarcely serving the third world any better. The protection of
  1042
  northern markets by northern countries costs third-world countries an estimated £100 billion a year. That, of course, does not count the damage caused by common agricultural policy food exports being offloaded on to world markets. The sums for trade greatly exceed the total of official aid.
  Of course, I am the first to accept that the Uruguay round of GATT will bring benefits to the third world, but the poorest countries under the existing arrangements are still likely to be worse off. They will often be unable to take advantage of new market opportunities, yet they have to open up to foreign competition. The relative value of their current trade preferences will be reduced, and fledgling service sectors in the third world may be wiped out. New rules on intellectual property will make technology transfer and economic development more difficult.
  Above all, I emphasise the fact that GATT will not tackle the commodity crisis, which is at the heart of the developing countries' problems. Their indebtedness escalated in the late 1980s because they were caught in the trap between plummeting commodity prices and soaring interest rates. What is unforgivable is that Government policy, like that, I admit, of other donor countries, makes the problem a great deal worse by supporting structural adjustment programmes which hinge on making poor countries export more. When, under pressure, they export more, they of course contribute to oversupply and thus drive prices down still further. How can the Government continue to support trade policies which reinforce the vicious spiral of poverty and decline, which is what has been happening for several years?
  On aid, the G7 summit agreed that development assistance should be enhanced. I welcome that conclusion, but the Government have made no commitments to respond. I do not think it is difficult to see why. Britain's record on aid—to put it no finer—is thoroughly depressing. Since 1979, Britain's official development assistance has fallen from 0·5 per cent. to 0·3 per cent. of GNP. Last year, the Government spent less than the Development Assistance Committee average and less than half the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. I am well aware that the Government insist that they will hit that target as, I suppose, the English cricket team does, although the latter are more honest about their likelihood of reaching the target.
  The Government's aid budget is still being cut, and it fell last year. I can give the Minister the figures if he is in any doubt. These are Government figures. Last year, the aid budget fell 4 per cent. in real terms and is now only three-quarters of the level of aid spending in 1979. Worse still, of course, is that the Government are proposing a two-year freeze on aid which even the Overseas Development Administration admits will knock a further £150 million off the aid budget. When the lower purchasing power of the pound after the black Wednesday devaluation is taken into account, it is more probable that the cut will be nearer to £250 million.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am always amazed by some of the statistics with which the hon. Gentleman is briefed, because they are always at complete variance with my figures. I wish to make two points. The aid programme has risen in real terms by 10 per cent. since 1987–88.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: What about the past 14 years?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I said since 1987–88.
  Mr. Meacher: What about last year?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman says last year, but I am talking about the previous six years. Let me answer. The budget for the financial year 1993–94 has risen 1 per cent. in real terms when compared with last year.
  Mr. Meacher: Listening to the Minister's weasel words, one might assume that the Government came to power in pieces and that the ODA only gained power in 1987. I remind him that the Government came to power in 1979. Since then there has been a large fall in aid levels of about 17 per cent. in real terms. The Government have done just about everything in the book to downgrade the aid programme. They have pensioned off the Minister with responsibility for aid to another place and have left the hon. Gentleman in charge in this House. After his performance in the debate two evenings ago, I will forbear to comment further as it is all there to read in the record.
  The aid programme has been almost halved. It is now being frozen. In the next decade, up to 40 per cent. of it will be passed to the European Community's aid programme, which the Government have always said is inferior in quality. Much of the rest is now being transferred from the dirt-poor south to the much better-off eastern Europeon and former Soviet Union countries, and the remainder is subject to an increasingly restrictive political and economic conditionality, which is often counter-productive. Short of demanding that, in future, aid be given only in exchange for donations to the Tory party, I do not see what more the Government could do to downgrade their aid programme.
  If the Tories were really concerned about aid and development, if they really cared about a vision of one world, there is a very great deal that they could and should do now.
  On debt, they should prepare a new debt relief package for the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank and for the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers. This should propose debt write-off of 80 to 100 per cent. for the very poorest countries, whose debt, in any case, is manifestly unrepayable. The Trinidad terms should be revised to grant debt relief on the whole stock of debt—not just, as at present, on the debt falling in the next three years or incurred before a cut-off date. The Government should come forward with a strategy to reduce multilateral debt. I might add that 91 per cent., I think, of the indebtedness of sub-Saharan Africa is multilateral, not bilateral. Thus, this is a very important area, in respect of which we need a new strategy. We need a strategy to halt what is now a net transfer of resources to the IMF—either through a new issue of special drawing rights or through the sale of IMF gold stocks.
  On trade, the Government certainly should, and could, be much more helpful in the renegotiation of international commodity agreements in order to tackle what I have described as the worst aspects of the commodity crisis. They should, and could, explore ways of helping to compensate the developing countries for the losses that they face under the GATT agreement, and they should support the African diversification fund, as proposed under the United Nations programme of action for African recovery, with a view to promoting the desperately needed switch into processing.
  1044
  On aid, the Government should support the demand of the non-governmental organisations that official development aid to sub-Saharan Africa in 1994–95 be increased by at least £100 million. If the Minister is concerned about where the money might come from, I suggest that the aid could well be paid for by reducing the subsidy to the banks against non-existing default. The Government should also give a commitment that United Kingdom aid to sub-Saharan Africa—the poorest part of the world—will continue to increase, in real terms, during the life of this Parliament.
  Finally, if the Government are really concerned about aid and development, as the Labour party is, they will drop this dog's breakfast in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and set up a Cabinet-level department of international development, as Labour is pledged to do. That would give the handling of these issues the political clout and the administrative weight that they urgently need. It is on those grounds that I strongly commend the motion to the House.
  7.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the motion, and to add instead thereof:
  'noting the problems of indebtedness and restricted trade access in hampering the growth of developing countries, welcomes the agreement by the G7 countries in Tokyo to consider improved debt reduction terms for the poorest and most indebted countries, including the possibility of earlier action on reducing the stock of debt on a case by case basis in accordance with the Prime Minister's Trinidad Terms initiative, to make all efforts to enhance development assistance, and to seek to achieve a successful Uruguay Round before the end of the year.'.
  I try to take the comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) seriously, but so often I find that his gift for exaggeration and his thrashing about in so many directions completely destroy the impact of any point he might be trying to make. I shall make a few overall comments, during the course of which I hope to give some reply to the hon. Gentleman's words. As he said, I am the Minister responsible for defending the Government in respect of aid matters. However, as hon. Members know, this debate is not just about aid; it is very much about trade and debt and about sensible policies in the developing world as well. As it is about trade as well as aid, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who is responsible for these matters, will reply to the debate. He will be able to give the House some enlightenment in addition to my comments about the recent Tokyo summit and the prospects for the GATT round.
  The Tokyo summit paid very close attention to the problems of the developing world. Quite contrary to the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman sought to attribute, the fruits are contained in the economic declaration. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman to read that declaration more carefully than he can have done so far, so that he may recognise the force of what I am saying. In any case, I shall illustrate the point by further argument in the course of my remarks. First, I should like to say a few words about the Tokyo breakthrough on trade liberalisation, which is also of great importance to the developing world.
  For the past four years the G7 summits, in their communiques, have called on the international community to work for the early completion of the Uruguay round.

  1045
  In previous years that call had gone unanswered. This year the situation was different: the summit acted as a catalyst for the consensus on market access in certain key areas reached by the trade negotiators in the four areas known as the Quad—the United States, Canada, Japan and the European Community. This was a great sticking point in the whole process of the GATT round. To have overcome it means that the prospects for agreement on the GATT round by the end of the year are greatly enhanced. That will be enormously to the benefit of the developing world.
  This is a crucial building block of the elements that will need to be put in place in Geneva by all the participants to ensure a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round. As I have indicated, that success is crucial to the developing world. The reason—and this is the context in which the debate should be placed—is that developing countries earn three times as much income from trade flows as from aid. Trade is essential to the developing world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] Hon. Members say, "Of course." They too are stating the obvious. Let me say what I think is very important, even if they find it obvious.
  Success would give a terrific boost to the world economy. There would be renewed confidence in investment overseas. In specific terms for the third world, the restrictions placed on subsidised agricultural exports would give developing countries a better chance to compete at home and abroad. Such a prize will be within our grasp in Geneva in the coming months, and we intend to keep up the momentum until there is a successful resolution.
  Mr. John Battle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give way very briefly, but I am conscious of the fact that many hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Battle: The truth, which did not come out at the summit, is that the GATT round will leave the poorest countries worse off. As the relative value of their trade preferences declines, they will be forced to open up their markets to foreign competition, but they will not be in a position to enjoy the advantages. Therefore, their trade flows will be in the opposite direction. Why was that not appreciated at the G7 summit?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If Opposition Members truly believe that, it is clear that there is a fundamental divide between us. I utterly reject that sort of thinking. Let me explain why. [Interruption.] I do not simply assert that. If I am given a chance, I will explain why.
  I reject that thinking because the annual volume of world aid to the developing world is $60 billion. The annual volume of world trade to the developing world is worth three times that amount, $180 billion. The GATT round will increase world trade benefit to the developing world by $90 billion. That is half the trade figure that I just quoted and it represents a gigantic boost to the trading and economic prospects of the third world.
  If we pursue that point any further we shall end up arguing about matters that we shall unable to resolve and all that we shall be able to do is to identify that there is a disagreement between us.
  Mr. Worthington: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, but for the last time.
  Mr. Worthington: This is a crucial point. Can the Minister tell us whether the manufactured or processed products of the third world will now be allowed into our markets without any problems? At present, tariffs must be paid on processed goods from the third world. Have those restrictions been swept away by the G7?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The G7 is not an implementing body, but a debating one. We have, however, carried the argument about trade restrictions a stage further. The hon. Gentleman must accept that Britain, and the Conservative Government in particular, cannot be faulted in wanting to relieve the world of restrictions in trade. At every forum and at every opportunity, we seek to reduce the restrictions on world trade.
  The multi-fibre arrangement was discussed at the Tokyo summit. We are arguing for further liberalisation of that arrangement, which will help the third world. I will say more about that if I can get on with my speech.
  Mr. Worthington: So the answer to my question is no.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question could not be yes. Of course all restrictions were not removed by that meeting in Tokyo. As I said, the G7 is not a decision-implementing body, but one in which matters are debated and arguments taken further forward.
  Mr. Jim Lester: May I recommend to Opposition Members that they read the book prepared by the Overseas Development Institute, which provides detailed information about the GATT round and is extremely careful in its assessment of the impact of that round? It came to the conclusion that the third world would benefit from the GATT round.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely helpful intervention, which will enable some Opposition Members to learn rather more about the subject. Even if they do not agree with the judgment given, they will come to appreciate that a large body of extremely respectable opinion shares my view—a view that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has also confirmed.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not frightened of giving way, because I have given way every time I have been requested to do so, but if I continue to do that I shall deprive hon. Members of sufficient time for debate. I will give way just once more.
  Mr. Enright: Which commodities coming from the least developed countries will benefit from GATT?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I intend to say something about the multi-fibre arrangement in a moment.
  It is the view of the Government and of many thinkers on the subject that increased trade is the central key to development. It enables developing countries to increase their own living standards. Development involves a partnership between the developed and the developing world and a comprehensive approach is needed.
  Four essential elements are required to help the poor of the world. As the hon. Member for Oldham, West highlighted, it is important that aid is well targeted. A debt

  1047
  strategy is also important. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to the House that that strategy was taken a stage further by discussion at Tokyo. The other overwhelmingly important element is trade and investment by other countries in the poor countries. [Interruption.] The figures demonstrate how important that is. That is not my blind assertion—it is backed up by the figures that I gave the House just a few moments ago.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West could have tabled a question at any stage to find out how many countries had benefited from the Trinidad terms. He asserted that 14 countries had benefited, but, so far, 17 countries have. I believe that the hon. Gentleman also said that $1 billion of debt had been written off, but in fact $2 billion has been written off.
  Mr. Meacher: About £500 million quid.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Oldham, West was kind enough to congratulate the Prime Minister, and I am grateful to receive the compliment on my right hon. Friend's behalf. I should like to go further, because without a shadow of doubt Britain has led the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief for the poorest developing countries. That debt relief was at the personal initiative of the British Prime Minister and, as a result, $2 billion of debt has been written off. What was significant at Tokyo, however—
  Mr. Worthington: What about commercial debt?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall come on to that, but give me a chance. I shall not shirk the questions that I have been asked, but, as always in such debates, there is an awful lot of chuntering coming from those on the Opposition Front Bench. I am hardly being given a chance to answer the questions that I am asked.
  We have long argued that more needed to be done and we are therefore delighted that the Tokyo summit called on the Paris Club of Government creditors to reconsider the issue. I am especially pleased to note that, for the first time, the possibility of action, case by case, on reducing the stock of debt was raised, again in line with the Prime Minister's original proposal at Trinidad in 1990. The stage is therefore set for building on the consensus of the seven participants at the summit for further concrete proposals within the Paris Club.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been reasonably patient because I am about to discuss two issues that he raised—net flows and commercial debt. The figures from the OECD—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are always grinning. If only they would get some facts—listen and get some facts.
  The figures from the OECD, which are much more comprehensive than those from any other source, for net resource transfers show that developing countries received £31·4 billion more in 1991 than they paid out. That figure confirms the encouraging recovery of recent years in resource transfers to developing countries.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the southern world. I do not know whether he was referring to sub-Saharan Africa or to the more general region. Sub-Saharan Africa is repaying the IMF more than it receives in new money at the moment. The IMF is not withdrawing from Africa, however, because it plays a vital part in catalysing financial flows from elsewhere. It is
  1048
  anxious to help the countries of sub-Sahara to meet their technical and financial needs. The IMF flows are only a small part of the total aid.
  Sub-Saharan Africa has consistently received more than it pays out when aid, foreign direct investment and other sources are included. In 1991 it received £6·95 billion, nearly £7 billion, according to World bank figures.
  Mr. Worthington: They cannot be true.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the references so that he can check the figures in the relevant publications. If he does not have a copy of them, they are, of course, in the Library.
  Some developing countries, particularly in Latin America, owe a significant proportion of their debt to commercial banks. It is not for our Government, or any other Government, to encourage, much less force, banks to cancel debt. That would deter them from lending to developing countries ever again in the future.
  Nevertheless, a tremendous amount of progress has been made multilaterally in reducing those debts. Some 90 per cent. of major debtor nations' bad debt is now covered by a commercial debt relief deal. The hon. Member for Oldham, West will be aware of the Brady plan, for which the United Kingdom has provided its share of finances, which helps debtor countries and banks to reach voluntary agreements on commercial debt reduction.
  The International Development Association also helps low-income countries to reach agreements with banks on commercial debt reduction. We are an important contributor to the IDA, which also gives concessional loans and uses IDA reflow to meet debt service obligations on old World bank loans. I am happy to have answered the hon. Gentleman's points in that regard.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I shall not give way again. I have given way four times in this short debate. Not only Opposition Members but several Conservative Members want to contribute to the debate and I do not see why I should prevent them from doing so.
  The summit considered measures to help eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union in their transformation from command to market economies. That matter is of great importance for world stability, which is affected by any instability in the former Soviet Union and eastern and central Europe. The summit welcomed Russia's renewed commitment to economic reform, which has made possible a $1·5 billion drawing facility from the IMF's new arrangement, called the Systemic Transformation Facility. A new programme worth $3 billion to promote privatisation and restructuring was also put in place.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who takes an interest in population, is in the Chamber, I register the importance of population. It should be registered on every occasion, but not dwelt on as I have already debated it with him. That issue was raised in Tokyo and I am pleased that the importance of helping developing countries to deal with the problems of population growth was recognised. The international conference on population and development taking place in Cairo next year will provide an opportunity to address those issues again.

  1049
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West made much of the need to help the poorest in the world and I appreciate his concern. In our efforts to promote development, the poorest have been the focus of our attention. Action on trade and debt is essential for developing countries' prospects but many of them, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, will continue to need access to concessional finance for the foreseeable future.
  Our aid is part of an overall international effort and has helped to bring about progress—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Oldham, West must look at the facts, not simply assert what he wishes or believes to be true. No one wants to be complacent about the matter, but let us get some facts clear. In the past 25 years, many developing countries such as Korea, Malaysia and Sri Lanka have seen a substantial rise in their per capita income. We do not give aid to Korea or Malaysia, but the aid that we give to Indonesia always irritates the Labour party. Those countries have improved the lot of their people. Life expectancy has risen and adult literacy has increased.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West described the Tokyo summit as an event not of disappointment but of despair, which overlooks the progress that has been made and should be recognised, even though the picture is not completely bright.
  The problem of sub-Saharan Africa is a cause for concern. The hopes of many African countries have not been realised, but even there progress has been made with countries such as Botswana, Mauritius and Ghana, which reap the benefits of the right policies. I am pleased that Africa's problems were fully recognised at the summit. We now look ahead to the international conference on African development taking place in Tokyo in October, which will consider the problems and solutions in more detail. Africa is a priority in our aid programme and nearly 50 per cent. of our bilateral aid goes there.
  It is important that developing countries should have the right policies to combine with the liberalisation of trade and the aid that we give them. To be effective, aid must be properly targeted and used in the right context, which means that developing countries must get their policies right. Those policies must support economic growth, encourage enterprise and allow their citizens to play a full part in economic and political life. That is why the focus of UNCED in Rio last year, on a national commitment to sustainable development, was so important.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned the problem of commodity prices. Of course a problem exists in commodity prices, but I support the Government's opposition to commodity price support stabilisation measures, which set artificially high prices, or in other cases distort market trends. There is no easy solution to commodity prices in developing countries, but the solution must remain diversification and not continued over-reliance on volatile commodities.
  The effectiveness of our aid programme has been widely recognised, even if the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not prepared to give it that credit. Elements of quality include its focus on the poorest: 80 per cent. of bilateral aid goes to countries with per capita incomes of less than $700
  1050
  a year—[Interruption.] I cannot take sedentary interventions the whole time. I have responded to many of them—
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, I cannot allow any more interventions. I have given way four or five times and I shall not do so again.
  Our programme is highly concessional. All new aid to the poorest is on grant terms, which avoids adding to their debt burden. We have the most rigorous criteria—economic, technical and environmental—to ensure the quality of the programmes and projects that we support. Our aid is well targeted on areas of key relevance to the central aim of sustainable development, as was recognised at UNCED.
  Long-term aid has helped some developing countries to create the right climate for economic growth and investment by providing incentives and support for reforms. Aid cannot do it all, however. It is enormously important to accept the argument that a comprehensive approach to the problems is needed—an argument that was stressed at the summit. A comprehensive approach bringing together trade, debt relief and well-targeted bilateral and multilateral aid is the way to help the developing world.
  I was deeply disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I was also deeply disappointed with the terms of his motion. So far as I am aware, the motion was received only very late last night, but it looked as though it had been written long before anyone went to Tokyo. It is remarkable that the objectives that the motion complains were not achieved in Tokyo were in fact achieved in Tokyo.
  Mr. Meacher: Such as?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the economic summit is not a decision-making organisation, but the Prime Minister secured agreement on the call to the Paris Club to reconsider introducing improved debt reduction terms for those countries in greatest need. The hon. Member for Oldham, West states in his motion that the G7 summit failed
  "to agree any new significant programme of debt relief".
  He is wrong. He goes on to state that the G7 summit failed
  "to ensure any adequate place for developing countries in future world trading patterns via the GATT Uruguay Round".
  Developing countries stand to gain from increased and fairer flows of trade, which will result from the Uruguay round. The hon. Member further states that the Government should
  "prepare a new British and international initiative for debt write-off for the poorest countries".
  We have no need for new initiatives as we have the Trinidad terms—the initiative launched by the Prime Minister. The rest of the world is beginning to accept the arguments that we have deployed over the years for an extension of the Trinidad terms. We are taking the initiative. We have pressed for that initiative. The hon. Member's motion is absurd.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Do not spoil my speech. I shall not give way as I have given way to the hon. Member several times.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should take the lead in setting out a trading framework which will ensure that developing countries can play a full part in the world trading system. The key to achieving that aim is to pursue with vigour the chance to conclude the GATT process and to increase the trade of the poor world by $90 billion per year.
  The British Government have pushed for some time for the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement, and the incorporation of trade in textiles into the general agreement on tariffs and trade as part of the Uruguay round. That will improve developing countries' access to our textile markets.
  I urge the House to consider those matters. It should consider the context of the aid in the correct dimension of a wider context which contains all the factors involved, and reject the motion.
  8 pm
  Sir David Steel: I shall start by confessing to the House that during my long time here I have never discovered how to be in two places at once. I have an engagement which will prevent me from listening to the entire debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has kindly offered to do so. Therefore, I owe the House the courtesy of being brief. I shall deal with the issues of aid, trade and debt in that order.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is one of the most exasperating Ministers to follow in any debate. I have listened for 38 minutes to a speech which had, at the most, 18 minutes' worth of content. The Minister is so nice that he keeps interrupting himself—the asides and diversions prolonged his speech. He asked Opposition Members to stop asking questions, to stop chuntering and to stop grinning. He stopped short of asking them to stop breathing. Everything that the Opposition did appeared to prolong the speech. The Minister's most revealing aside was when he confided in us that he agreed with Government policy. That fact is worth highlighting in yellow in Hansard.
  There was an exchange of statistics on aid and, as so often happens in this place when the Government and the Opposition exchange statistics, both were correct, but they were trading different ones. Sadly, in 1992 our official development assistance fell from 0·32 per cent. to 0·31 per cent. of gross domestic product. We moved away from the United Nations target, instead of moving towards half the United Nations target. That fact is incontrovertible.
  As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, since 1991 our overseas development aid budget relay assistance budget has fallen by 4 per cent. The Minister countered that by saying that the budget for 1993–94 shows an increase of 1 per cent., which is splendid, and if we add the two together there is a net decrease of 3 per cent. He asked the Opposition if they would at least agree on the basic figure. Even my elemental arithmetic allows me to work out that one plus minus four equals minus three. The Minister produced a figure for 1987.
  The Government's record on overseas aid since they came to power in 1979 has been lamentable and the fault
  1052
  for that lies with the previous Prime Minister. It has to be said in favour of the present Prime Minister that he has changed the record so that it is no longer totally disgraceful, but rather poor. That is all that can be said about it.
  I am glad that the Minister for Trade is present and is to sum up the debate—I shall be back to hear what he has to say. I want to ask him a specific question on the future aid budget. It is a question raised by the House of Lords in the report published last month by the Select Committee on European Communities. We are committed to an increase in the European Community's aid programme. The Lords report makes interesting reading as it commends the European Community's aid programme. On page 22, paragraph (b), it states:
  "We are concerned about the potential serious effect on the United Kingdom's own bilateral programme because of the decision to increase EC aid without knowing whether there will be a corresponding increase in the ODA budget which finances both our share of the EC's programme and also our own bilateral programme. There is a risk of an unacceptable squeeze on our bilateral programme."
  I hope that we can be told what the effect will be of our commitment to join in the share of the increased EC budget as well as enduring the current public expenditure squeeze on our budget.
  It remains my party's firm view that we should not just make a general commitment—as the Government have—to the United Nations target on overseas aid without setting a date, but have a specific programme. No political party, even one which has been out of power as long as mine, can promise to do that tomorrow, but we should have a committed programme over a full Parliament to reach the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent., which is attainable and reasonable and should be met.
  Two propositions were made, one by the Government and one by the Opposition, on which no agreement was reached across the Floor of the House. As the Minister said, there is no doubt that the developing world as a whole will benefit from increased liberalisation of trade. However, it is equally true, as one or two Opposition Members said, that the very poorest countries do not stand to benefit. Both propositions are correct. We are entitled to ask the Government what approach they take to future GATT talks—that is a direct question for the Minister for Trade. It seems that the GATT will not tackle the commodity crisis. The poorest countries naturally have to rely heavily for income on their own primary products, but the price of those products has been falling—it fell 30 per cent. in the 1980s.
  The EC tariff on cocoa beans is 3 per cent., but if the beans are processed into cocoa butter in the country of origin the duty is 12 per cent. If they are further processed into chocolate it rises to 16 per cent. Such a policy discriminates against the economic development of primary products in the developing world. We are entitled to ask what the Government will do about such issues in future trade negotiations because such policies operate against countries that have few resources other than primary products that they wish to develop.
  The Government must pay special attention to the commodity problem. They should consider compensation for the losses that the poorer countries would face under GATT agreements. They must consider some support to enable such countries to continue to benefit from some of their current trade preferences.
  The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that GATT trade negotiations are conducted through the Commission. Given the right hon. Gentleman's federalist tendencies, I am sure that he is happy for that to remain the case. There is a limit to what the Government can do, but we shall take account of the commodity issue and press for a solution.
  Sir David Steel: If that is a form of commitment, I welcome it. Of course, the decisions are made by the Community as a whole. I said that we are entitled to ask what the Government are doing in the Community to have those policies changed. Inasmuch as my party has any influence with Ministers and similar parties elsewhere, I assure the Minister that we shall press exactly the same issues. We do not speak with two voices on this matter.
  Debt is the most serious of the three issues facing the developing world. I accept that the G7 leaders had a healthy debate on the debt burden, especially that of Africa, but the figures given by the hon. Member for Oldham, West are correct and show the huge increase in debt in the past half dozen years. Although my figure on Zambia's debt is different from that of the hon. Gentleman, it shows that every man, woman and child in that country owes more than twice the national income. That is intolerable.
  The fact that some of us were a bit disappointed by what happened in Tokyo is illustrated by the text that I read in the Library of the detailed communique and the Prime Minister's statement. I shall contrast what he said about the aid to Russia with what he said about aid to the poorest countries. He said that the Group of Seven had put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia. He went on:
  "We set out a programme worth some $3 billion to help privatisation and restructuring."
  I am not in any way against those firm and specific proposals. However, later in the statement when the Prime Minister dealt with debt reduction, he said
  "I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope this will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further."
  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the hon. Member for Oldham, West and I went to see the Prime Minister before he left for Tokyo. Therefore, I am aware of that hope. However, the G7 summit did not produce the firm commitment to relieve debt in the poorest countries that it produced on the issue of aid to Russia.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the right hon. Gentleman gives us credit for trying. Success will be achieved by taking consensus forward. The alternative might be to have some sort of unilateral concession by the United Kingdom on some debt, but that would be nothing like as effective for the poor world as one that had the agreement of the other parties to the Paris Club.
  Sir David Steel: When the Minister reads Hansard he will see that I thanked the Prime Minister for his efforts. We should not get carried away simply because G7 countries are considering the matter. As democratic politicians we are entitled to press for more specific action. The Minister tempts me to digress a little.
  In the House and privately to us, the Prime Minister said that the Japanese Government, who are one of the
  1054
  major players, are philosophically reluctant to engage in debt write-off. I raised that with a Japanese Government representative a few days ago. He said that that was true, but that they would compensate for that by greatly increasing grants to the developing world so that it could pay off debt. I do not know the scale of that, but if the Japanese Government are pursuing that policy, at least they are not proving an obstacle to greater agreement among the G7 countries on the debt question.
  Pressure on the commercial banks should not be passed over as lightly as the Minister did. If my memory serves me right, there was a measure in last year's Finance Bill to help the banks to write off debt. I am not a Treasury expert and someone from the Treasury would be needed to speak about that. Moreover, many commercial banks have made provision in their accounts for writing off debt but have not written it off. Surely the Government should have a word with the commercial banks to persuade them to do more on this issue.
  Secondly, what is the Government's strategy towards the multilateral agencies on debt? The IMF and World bank meeting will be held in September. What stance will the Government take at that meeting to try to get the agencies to do more? As we have heard, the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting and the international conference on African debt will be held in October. All those meetings are scheduled to be held shortly and there is scope for the Government to continue to take a high profile on debt relief. Yes, we shall thank them for trying, but we shall thank them even more when they succeed.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his achievements at the G7 summit in Tokyo. He has returned from all three recent summit meetings—in Copenhagen, Edinburgh and Tokyo—with the consistent message that he wishes to see measures that will encourage economic development in the industrial world and in the third world.
  At the Tokyo summit, there was major progress on debt, on the GATT talks and on world trade and unemployment. Those are the problems that will beset the world and we must try to deal with them in the third world, Russia, Asia, Europe and the Americas. The theme of the Prime Minister's message to the House on Monday was that he believed that more trade produced more jobs and that economic development was the way to deal with debt issues and the alleviation of poverty, to which we are all devoted.
  One of the major issues in economic development in Africa and the third world is debt. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) rightly said that African debt is largely to the international financial institutions and not to the commercial banks or to Governments.
  Therefore, the debt problem in Africa, and especially in Zambia about which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was concerned, is a matter for the international financial institutions. To clear that debt, we must consider complete debt forgiveness. In that context, the Japanese example is important, but without debt forgiveness interest continues to mount. Debt forgiveness is needed from the Japanese and I am afraid that we shall

  1055
  have to press them still further, because just giving grants to repay debt will not be sufficient to pay the capital let alone the interest that has accrued on much African debt. That is especially true of the highly indebted Zambia.
  Therefore, there has to be bilateral action by the member states of the G7 and others to write off debt in the Trinidad terms to which every hon. Member has referred. It was pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has continued to press it throughout all the international conferences he has attended.
  We have to take further initiatives and consider all the debts in each country—private debts, commercial debts, trading debts and debts to international financial institutions—make an overall settlement with each country and arrange for repayments to be made over an extended period. Some 35 years or more may be necessary for those countries to be able to afford to repay the debts on a controlled basis without taking too much of their export earnings or their gross domestic product which in some countries in Africa is entirely hypothecated to the repayment of debt.
  Considerable progress has been made in debt repayment. One can point immediately to Mexico which was one of the major indebted countries when we were considering these matters in the early 1980s and when the Brady plan came into existence. A great deal of effort has gone into Mexico, and Mexican debt has now been stabilised. We are seeing inward investment into Mexico and the stopping of capital flight from Mexico which is becoming a focus for inward investment. That represents a great international success in dealing with debt worldwide. The same story applies to many countries in South America.
  The international community, with Britain playing a leading role, has had considerable success which we should not underestimate or denigrate. However, we have to go further; it is never enough—but that always applies to all aid issues.
  Our own aid budget, of course, is not, and never will be, enough to deal with all the problems, but I should like to make one or two suggestions. Our aid programme now, which is of high quality, is probably stretched too tightly over too many objectives to become as purposeful and effective as we should like.
  The objectives for overseas aid in Command Paper 2202, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's departmental report, list a whole set of aims, which include
  "the adoption of economic policies that reduce price
  distortions and rely more on the market; encouragement of the private sector as a source of wealth creation; investment in economic and social infrastructure; improvements in women's status; higher standards in political systems, public administration and the legal sector; projects and programmes which have a positive impact on the lives of the poorest people; and investment and planning to help protect the economy from natural disasters."
  That is not a full summary of what the Overseas Development Adminstration does, but it is a considerable programme to try to implement in any country, particularly in the large number of countries to which our aid budget is devoted.
  I do not believe that we should cut out aid to any particular country except those with a hostile economic and governmental structure which makes economic development impossible. To use President Reagan's expression, we must concentrate more on developing
  1056
  measures by which we can give people in these countries the means to cure their economic problems. We should give them more of the fishing rod and less of the fish.
  For example, we must reduce our concentration on health matters, education matters and technical assistance, which involves sending executives and civil servants to help with administration or central banking functions. We have to reduce those activities and concentrate more on economic development and encouraging those countries to adopt economic policies and introduce Government measures to encourage economic development. That means that we have to encourage the private sector to develop in those countries and help them to take out public sector mismanagement. For example, appalling waste can be seen in many of the Zambian parastatals which are inefficient and corrupt. We need to take them out of that inefficient management and help them get back into prosperous and efficient operations in the private sector.
  The Overseas Development Administration is to be congratulated as it has started to develop some of its programme towards that end, but it must be taken very much further forward. One of the ways in which the Overseas Development Administration is immensely successful is through the Commonwealth Development Corporation and I shall say a few words about the problems that now face that corporation which I had the honour to serve in a junior capacity before I entered the House.
  At present, as a result of the public expenditure survey settlement, the corporation has been left without access to the aid programme's budget and therefore to low-interest loans. If that programme continues, the Commonwealth Development Corporation will have to come out of the very places that we need to support, such as Africa. Those countries are the most difficult places in which to get economic development started. It will become exceedingly difficult for the CDC to invest in those countries, repay the loans with interest to the Government and pay tax on those loans, which are its current terms of reference and method of operation.
  If, on the other hand, the Government renew their support for the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the CDC can get beneath Government level, into the wealth-creating sectors of the economy and invest in profitable operations, including, of course, those producing commodities.
  We have heard about the problem of prices. We have to recognise that GATT is a very important issue for the third world countries and begin to address the problem of low and falling commodity prices which have created many problems in the third world over the past decade.
  If we begin to eliminate agricultural surpluses by the elimination of subsidy in our over-subsidised northern agriculture arenas in commodities such as sugar, we will stop exporting to the world markets. The European Community exports more than 3 million tonnes of sugar to world markets with what effect? Of course, it reduces the world price of sugar and third world countries are exporting their sugar at world prices.
  If we stop subsidised sugar and other commodities coming on to the world market, we will raise the prices that third world countries get for their commodities and begin the process of enriching those countries and enabling them to buy products from our countries, thus benefiting from world trade. That would benefit third world countries and enable them to help themselves. Quite frankly, that is the

  1057
  only way in which those countries will begin to be able to repay debt and improve their standards of living. I am forced to conclude that we must concentrate on third world countries' wealth-creating sectors, support them through aid, and reduce or write off their debts—or at least make them capable of repaying them, so that further investment by private banks and international financial institutions is not inhibited.
  Those institutions have a problem in Africa, and I hope that my hon. Friends will ensure that it is raised at the World bank meeting in September. I am concerned particularly about repaying international financial institu-tion debt without reducing the inward flow of moneys from those institutions and investment in the economic cycle of which I have spoken.
  Further progress has been made in finding a way in which the world economy can begin to work to the benefit of countries in not only the north—which we desperately need, if we are to be able to employ more people—but the third world. Only a beneficial relationship between the two will bring success in addressing world poverty problems.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: I did not intend to refer specifically to aid agencies—which are always helpful in providing up-to-date information on their activities and advice for the purposes of such debates. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs reacted like a wounded animal to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the success or otherwise of the Tokyo summit, and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) also seems to think that the summit was a success and that the G7 ought to be congratulated.
  I will quote briefly from comments by professional agencies in the field which put aid programmes into effect, and which have regular contact with many of the countries in question. ActionAid stated:
  "The tariff cuts agreed at the summit last week are unlikely to provide many benefits for developing countries. It is disappointing that the failure to include tariffs on agricultural products may postpone agreement at the GATT talks on areas (such as agriculture) essential for the future of developing countries."
  Christian Aid commented:
  "The G7 Tokyo Summit Economic Declaration…does little to promote debt relief for the Third World; it merely reaffirms the status quo."
  Oxfam stated:
  "Following the failure of the G7 meeting yet again to address the problem of debt, HMG must redouble its efforts to get the issue firmly on the international agenda."
  Those comments counter the claims made by the Minister and Conservative Members in tonight's debate. I know which side I am on in reaching my conclusions.
  I am in no doubt that, not for the first time, the G7 summit promised little and delivered even less to the developing world. The declaration does little more than maintain the status quo, while the Prime Minister's performance did not enhance his poor aid record, or that of this country over the past decade.
  In 1989, when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he told the G7 summit that the Trinidad terms ought to be introduced with a view to easing the third world's crippling debt burden. We sought to support that
  1058
  initiative, and we continue to do so. I would have preferred a 66 per cent. write-off rather than the 50 per cent. for which the Toronto terms provided.
  Four years later, even that modest improvement has not been delivered. That write-off would not itself be sufficient to counter the crippling effects of debt repayment, yet the Prime Minister—despite the fine words of Conservative Members—was unable to deliver even that pledge, far less his new proposal for 80 per cent. write-off.
  Only last month, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, addressing the One World Action conference on debt, claimed that Britain would press for improved debt reduction terms for poor and heavily indebted countries.
  He said:
  "for some of them, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, much more needs to be done…We in the UK would like to see the Trinidad terms improve so that they conform more closely to the proposals John Major put forward in Trinidad in 1990."
  I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has left the Chamber, presumably to take his evening meal—although he has every right to do so. I wanted to put to him a question, of which his advisers will no doubt inform him when he returns to reply to the debate.
  Where is the evidence that the good intentions espoused by the Prime Minister, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers were vigorously pursued at Tokyo? It is no use the Under-Secretary praising the Prime Minister. What did the British initiatives at Tokyo actually produce for the poor?
  Mr. Needham: I shall be winding up the debate.
  Mr. Watson: Then I hope that the Minister for Trade will answer that question.
  The summit at least acknowledged the particular needs of sub-Saharan Africa, but the Under-Secretary of State made no commitment to respond to those needs. One way would be to announce additional assistance from the current public spending round. Without such a commitment, this country's already poor record of aid spending will at best remain at current levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West spelt out that the freeze will amount to a 4 per cent. reduction in real terms.ODA funding is already in reverse, at 0·31 per cent. of gross domestic product this year, compared with 0·32 per cent. last year, which is well short of the United Nations figure.
  I wholly endorse the view of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). that that should be an achievable target of a Parliament. Labour made a commitment to the United Nations target in its aid proposals at the last general election, and the United Nations figure is clearly endorsed by the Liberal Democrats. If the Government had a clear commitment to aid, they would at least announce a timetable to implement the United Nations target.
  How do the Minister and the Government expect us to take them seriously when they are back-peddling and making no real attempts to acknowledge or to deal with the mountain of debt that is weighing down and stunting the growth potential of the third world?
  The Minister for Overseas Development, Lady Chalker, constantly talks up her Department's relatively modest aid to countries such as Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan. The briefings that emanate from the ODA refer to

  1059
  £20 million of food aid here or £20 million of humanitarian assistance there. I do not mean to belittle those valuable efforts, which I commend if they meet their objectives, but they pale into insignificance alongside the crippling debt burden of many African countries.
  This ought to be a time of hope for Africa. Things are looking better in terms of developing democracies in a number of countries. Ethiopia, Eritrea and Mozambique—which are populated by some of the world's most vulnerable people—have seen peace established and maintained after decades of armed conflict. However, of necessity, they remain fragile and are seriously under-mined by lack of support from the international community, which allows their debt burden to rise.
  Nowhere is the legacy of accumulated debt more threatening than in Ethiopia. It is estimated that its economy shrunk 6 per cent. last year, and that it will need to find £1 billion annually over the next three years just to cover debt service payments. It is surely important that such a sum should be used to develop Ethiopia's economy, feed its people in the short term, and ensure that it can sustain itself in the long term. That is more important than servicing debts which, no matter how much is repaid, seem to grow ever larger.
  From the threadbare section on aid that emerged from the Tokyo declaration, it is clear that the world's richest nations failed to grasp the fundamental point. That statement was vague and complacent:
  "We will continue to strengthen our support for their self-help efforts based on the principles of good governance. We will also encourage them"—
  the developing countries, that is—
  "to follow sound and open economic policies to create a solid base for sustainable economic growth."
  "Encourage" is the key word. Many of the countries concerned have been effectively strangled by structural adjustment programmes, mainly through the World bank.
  The declaration continues:
  "we will make all efforts"—
  there is nothing more precise than that—
  "to enhance development assistance in order to respond to ongoing needs as well as new requirements."
  Although the Prime Minister and the other G7 leaders may have achieved some successes, I venture to suggest that tackling the issues of aid, trade and debt in the developing world was not one of them.
  The massive wave of debt repayment that washes over the poorest countries every year hits Africa hardest. Between 1985 and 1992, the continent repaid more than £80 billion in servicing its debt, diverting Government spending from desperate social need and choking at birth any real chance of recovery. To concentrate on Africa—in which I have taken a particular interest—is not to ignore the need to assist other developing countries; I accept that need exists much further afield. It merely reflects the priorities at a time of scarce economic resources throughout the world.
  Of course, everything is relative. In Latin America, external debt amounts to an average of 37 per cent. of gross domestic product; in the United Kingdom, the figure is about 6 per cent. In Africa, the average exceeds 100 per cent., and is much higher than that in many of the poorest nations. Zambia has already been mentioned.
  The stark fact that must be spelt out repeatedly until it is both grasped and acted on is that sub-Saharan Africa owes more than it earns, and cannot hope to repay that debt in the foreseeable future. The only way in which those
  1060
  countries can be enabled to recover and build up their economies is the writing off of debt. The sole question should be what percentage is written off.
  It could be argued that the write-off should be total, although in the past the Government have argued that full write-offs encourage debtor countries to ignore their repayment requirements. That is all very well, but to apply such a stricture to the poorest countries while applying different criteria to assistance to Russia—or the writing off of most of what Egypt and Poland owed—is to employ double standards that invite cynicism when issuing from the mouths that call for the implementation of the Trinidad terms while failing to deliver.
  That tendency to cyncism is hardly diminished when we consider the performance of British banks in regard to third world lending. Most shy away from Africa, concentrating instead on Latin America—but not Lloyds and the Midland, which have done very well out of the debt built up by the developing world. Over the past three years, the developing countries have propped up the Midland, subsidising its United Kingdom operations. In 1991, without profits from third world debt, the bank would have recorded a loss of about £50 million rather than a profit of £36 million. Last year, £82 million of its operating income came from developing countries' activities.
  Recently, Ben Jackson of the World Development Movement said:
  "It is unacceptable for the banks to enjoy tax holidays at the expense of British taxpayers without passing a penny of that relief onto the world's poor and then, when it suits them, to write those debts back into their accounts".
  For the Midland, third world debt has turned into a nice little money earner. Its shareholders may be satisfied, but the world's poor certainly are not. Debt repayments continue to flood out of the third world. I invite the Minister to condemn the banks' self-seeking approach, and to endeavour to close any loopholes that permit such an approach.
  There are two main reasons why the world's poorest countries should have been offered a major programme of assistance last week. First, they have generally done their best to repay their debts, but have simply been unable to do so. For instance, 10 years ago, the total external third world debt amounted to about £550 billion; in the intervening decade, debtor countries have paid back nearly £1,000 billion more, but they now owe £1,100 billion. They are not merely running fast to stand still; they are being propelled backwards at a rate of knots. That cannot be allowed to continue.
  Secondly, the crisis is not of the debtor countries' own making. I do not deny that there are examples of economic mismanagement, largely because Governments are running economies for the first time; but a cocktail of plummeting commodity prices and soaring interest rates has caused Africa's debt burden to spiral out of all control. As a result of the diversion of scarce resources, Africa now spends four times as much on debt repayments as it spends on health care. The House has already debated the dreadful health problems on that continent.
  I agree with the Minister about the need to use trade as a means of assisting such countries. Certainly, there is far more to be gained from trading with them than from simply doling out aid. Trade links provide a potential lifeline for developing countries. I think the Minister said that trade with the developing world amounted to three

  1061
  times the value of aid; I believe that the figure is higher, but I will not quibble. The point is that most developing countries rely on a small number of primary commodities. The World bank's commodity price index has plummeted by some 30 per cent., with all-too-predictable results for the poorest countries.
  As has been pointed out, the tariff cuts agreed at last week's summit are unlikely to provide many benefits for developing countries. None of the aid agencies considers that anything meaningful has emerged from Tokyo. It was a lost opportunity for the G7 nations. Of course we in the developed world have our own problems, but it is simply not good enough to pass up the opportunity to help the developing countries, instead producing a few bland paragraphs in a subsequent announcement.
  Oxfam is one of the aid agencies that called for full implementation of the Trinidad terms. It was supported by a recently formed all-party parliamentary group called Africa Caucus, whose members include the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who was present earlier—and myself. We urged the G7 leaders to give serious consideration to debt write-off at the summit: it would allow developing countries to gain the breathing space necessary to enable their economies to recover and begin the inevitably slow climb towards sustainable recovery.
  Although that approach proved ineffective, Africa Caucus will continue to campaign for at least a year to highlight the serious plight of African countries, and to seek the support of the developed nations.
  ActionAid, not being content with dwelling on the past, has targeted the future, referring to the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in the autumn and the international conference on African development which will take place in October. Although the declaration refers to that, and also to the population conference to be held in Cairo in 1994, it does not suggest a link between those events to help the poor. As things stand, they will prove no more significant than the Tokyo summit—perhaps even less significant.
  The Government must play a much more vigorous role in ensuring that the plight of the debt-burdened nations is treated seriously at such fora, and that that consideration is translated into meaningful action. So far, that has not happened.
  If both the Ministers present today—and the Prime Minister—expect to be taken seriously in regard to aid, trade and debt, I suggest that they make firm commitments. First, although it stresses the need to alleviate poverty, the ODA does not measure the amount that it spends for that purpose; it is impossible to obtain a figure showing the effects of that spending. I understand that no benchmarks are available to assess the ODA's performance. That gap ought to be filled. I ask the Minister to make attempts to get the ODA quickly to introduce indicators and benchmarks so that its record can be evaluated.
  I mentioned earlier that the Government should also revoke the decision to freeze between now and 1996 the official aid figure that has already been announced. I referred to the effect that that will have. It amounts to de facto cuts, which represent a further betrayal of the
  1062
  developing world. Those cuts should not be forced on them after the empty hand that was shown to them at Tokyo.
  The Minister should also commit additional assistance from the current public spending round to the poorest nations. Apart from increasing the assistance given to them, it might also act as an incentive to Britain's G7 partners, who are clearly in need of, shall we say, a vigorous prod in that direction. If that is not done, nothing will change.
  Can the Minister assure us that the British Government will match their good intentions with tangible evidence of their determination to bring about the implementation of the Trinidad terms? They are taken along to the G7 and other summits, but nothing really meaningful seems to emerge. If the Government do not do that, I fear that, for the world's poor, it will be a case yet again—and I am sick and tired of this—of jam tomorrow. Many of those people do not have the ability to get the bread on which any jam, whatever form it might take, could be spread at any future time. It is time to act. We really must provide something more tangible than what was produced at last week's G7 summit.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), whose views and expertise we recognise. However, the motion on the Order Paper amounts to shadow boxing by the shadow Cabinet. Most people realised that this G7 summit was perhaps the least fortuitous for a long time. The world is faced with many economic problems. The Japanese in particular were in difficulties, due to their elections. It was wrong to imagine, therefore, that one could go along to the G7 and find that people were prepared to find a way of resolving the problems faced by developing countries.
  As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central said, we saw the Prime Minister before he went to the G7 summit. His commitment is as strong as it was when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. His recognition of the debt problem is still as complete as it was when he made those voluntary moves. He did not make them for any other reason than his own interest in the subject and his commitment to it. I suspect that if it were not for the Prime Minister, this issue would not have been raised at the G7 summit, that it would not have featured in the communiqué and that there would have been no commitment to follow it up.
  Furthermore, no one should underestimate the views of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was also in Tokyo and with whom I have had the opportunity to discuss briefly what happened. His commitment to international order equals that of the Prime Minister. I am sure that at future international meetings the Chancellor of the Exchequer will use his influence to cajole, persuade or, dare I say it, bully other nations which do not hold the same view about some of the poorest parts of the world, or about debt that can never be repaid.
  The right hon.Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) referred to the fact that the Japanese do not believe in forging debt. My research work in Tanzania showed me that when that country borrowed money from the Intenational Monetary Fund about 15 years ago it borrowed a basket of currencies, most of which consisted of Japanese yen. Tanzania borrowed that money at a time when interest rates were low. Nobody told

  1063
  Tanzania that 10 years later, when it would have to repay the debt, it would be obliged to go on to the world market and buy yen when the interest rate was something like 350 per cent.
  No one should doubt, either, the commitment of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Overseas Development to finding a solution to the problems that we are debating. They have shown consistent concern and they have immense practical experience of those problems. They understand the need to provide high levels of support through a combination of debt relief, better trade terms and multilateral and bilateral aid programmes.
  Many of the G7 countries are concerned about the overall gap in aid levels, which continues to widen. More and more countries, under economic pressure, are reducing and redirecting their aid programmes—for example, Canada, the United States and Sweden—at a time when the needs of sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world have never been greater. We should be concerned about the whole international aid effort and the way in which it is moving against the incredible demands for aid, in particular from sub-Saharan Africa.
  I am sure that all hon. Members who are now in the Chamber have signed my early-day motion 2099, which calls on Her Majesty's Government to find an extra £100 million for sub-Saharan Africa. I think that 124 hon. Members have already signed it. This country has particular knowledge of Africa. If we are not to the fore in arguing the case for Africa, no one else will. We must encourage the positive changes that we see taking place in southern Africa, Mozambique and Ethiopia.
  Those of us who take a close interest in Africa, however, are always worried about Africa taking three steps forward and three steps back. Recent events in Angola, Nigeria and Zaire are very unwelcome. It is nevertheless in the long-term interests of those countries to know that the support of this country and of this Administration, and, I hope, more encouraging support from the Opposition than has been shown hitherto, is one way to get the richer nations of the world to recognise their plight.
  I recognise how committed the non-governmental organisations are to finding the solution to these problems. It is easy to say that the G7 was a write-off if one does not appreciate how hard the negotiations can be. I have negotiated with NGOs at various international meetings and I cannot say that they are always brilliant when it comes to producing results. When I say that, I have to declare an interest. I am a member of the overseas committee of the Save the Children Fund. I am also on the board of Christian Aid—unpaid, of course.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central referred to Poverty Focus. I was at the conference at which Action Aid initiated Poverty Focus. Those of us who have experience of overseas development find it difficult to be exact about precisely what it is that relieves poverty. I could take hon. Members to a place in Kenya where a road has done more to relieve poverty than any seemingly positive Poverty Focus programme. It led to a large number of villages having access to the market and has lifted the burden of poverty from those places. One would not necessarily say, though, that a road programme was a Poverty Focus issue. One must be careful about trying to define the criteria too closely.
  I support the ODA programme, 80 per cent. of which goes to the 50 poorest countries. It is the right one. We
  1064
  should keep a constant eye on that sort of programme to ensure that it goes a long way to relieving poverty. I am not as convinced as others that one can define a "poverty-related programme"—one cannot say that a programme is poverty related and that is where we should be targeting our bilateral aid.
  I have always supported the Government's commit-ment to quality aid. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), I have always argued that it should be more. In the present circumstances, I recognise that the Prime Minister is pursuing the uprating of the debt terms from what are now accepted universally and known as the enhanced Toronto terms to get to the original Trinidad terms. That would be a major step forward. I do not understand why we should go beyond the Trinidad terms in terms of international acceptance until we have the Trinidad terms. That is what the Prime Minister is pushing for and it is the direction in which we should be going.
  I shall raise some concerns that are important in terms of examining the way in which aid programmes are developing. One of those concerns is the incredible pressure that the state of the world is putting on emergency relief. I am sure that not everyone recognises that emergency relief in the ODA budget has increased five-fold since 1987—it was £34 million in 1987 and is £171 million in 1992–93.
  Many of us recognise that that is essential humanitarian aid. It repairs damage caused by civil wars and breakdowns in society. It is for refugees, food and immediate relief of disaster situations. If we look at what that money could do and if we look at some of the people who are causing the problems for others in their countries, there is a significant increase in development and sustainable aid if that is where it should be targeted.
  I recognise that ODA has a special reputation for disaster relief. It has done that successfully for as long as I have been in the House—it goes back further than 1987 when we had the original famines in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa. We should draw more attention to the fact that the money is being diverted from sustainable developmental aid. It is not being wasted, because it is essential to protect human life, but it is being used for the opposite to what the ODA programme should be about. It is the opposite to what we believe long-term sustainable development and the money that we vote for that head should be used for.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I share the hon. Gentleman's view entirely. When there is a disaster at home, we find money from a contingency fund which we do not otherwise call on and which is not under that budget head for the year. Does he agree that the money that has often been diverted for international relief operations, which comes out of the ODA budget pocket, should be regarded as a separate head, a contingency, when we come to the rescue of fellow human beings in the world? If we did that, the ODA budget could be geared to and directed at the sustainable, long-term progressive work for which the hon. Gentleman is arguing.
  Mr. Lester: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister that, for the first time, the Government's contingency fund has been used to restore to ODA money that has been used for humanitarian relief. It was not true of the previous Prime

  1065
  Minister, but it is certainly true of this one. I know that that recommendation will be supported by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which is currently drafting a report on the expenditure of the Foreign Office and the ODA.
  Another pressure on the ODA budget that we should understand is the proportion of multilateral aid that is taken for peacekeeping and the proportion that goes to the European Development Fund. Like the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, I support that principle. It has always seemed to be absolutely right that the strength of the European Community can do far more for developmental assistance than individual countries picking off a little bit here and a little bit there, however important that is.
  As we see an increasing proportion of our aid budget going through multilateral agencies and the European Development Fund, we need a keen evaluation of the schemes that are taken at that level. We must take seriously the fact that that is where our aid programme is increasingly being used. We should be ensuring that everything that we do through those multilateral agencies is every bit as good as the bilateral programmes for which we are responsible.
  Another concern is the increased assistance to the former Soviet Union. In the case of this Government, that is in addition to the moneys originally voted for overseas assistance. That is not true of many other countries in the European Community.
  When considering overall percentages of aid, it must be remembered that aid given to the Soviet Union and to central Europe does not appear as overseas development. It comes on top of and is no part of the overseas development assistance, yet it is included under that budget.
  The balance between multilateral and bilateral aid is changing fundamentally and it will not be many years before multilateral aid will be greater than our bilateral aid programme. It is therefore important that the Government and all of us who take an interest in such matters should ensure that we first look for quality and effectiveness of those multilateral programmes and, when there is an increase in the ODA budget. that we also ensure that it goes to our bilateral programme to achieve the sustainable development to which we are committed.
  The Government—especially the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—must remain acutely conscious of all the concerns that are expressed internationally and nationally and by the NGOs. I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will follow the progress made at the G7 summit in all the areas about which we are concerned and in all the places where it is most effective—debt, trade and development.
  9.7 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I shall begin by agreeing with my namesake, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). He commented on the major crisis among the main aid donors and the reductions in aid given. That does not let this country off the hook. For a long time, we have ranked as one of the lowest main donors of aid. That is a tragedy for the developing countries and the world as a whole.
  1066
  It is unfortunate that a Minister is not present for such a debate as this—not because I doubt the competence of those who are present, but simply because it downgrades the whole stature and nature of such a debate and rather gives the impression that we regard overseas aid as second class, which of course we do not.
  Most of us who have fought elections I have—fought and won more than most—know that one of the biggest meetings held during election campaigns is on aid, development and peace, and is usually organised by the church. There is no question but that the general public want to support more aid, development and trade in the developing world. Surveys have shown that over half the people in the country are prepared to pay higher taxes if it would help to alleviate the poverty and the terrible problems of the third-world countries that they have seen depicted on their television screens.
  Even though it is obvious, it needs to be restated that the examples of famine and starvation in developing countries and the pictures of floods and drought that we have all seen are much more to do with wars, with arms sales, and with debt and trade restrictions than with the indigenous problems.
  Trade restrictions especially lock countries into a vicious circle of growing and unending misery. For every £1 given in aid, £2 is taken back as interest repayments on debt. The third world loses more through the trade policies of the rich north and war, often sadly fuelled by arms sales—and we seem to be at it again—which robs those countries of the resources they need, robs the children of their future and leaves behind a trail of misery.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe referred in passing to the briefing of other hon. Members by overseas aid agencies. I am not implying that he was disparaging about it, but he certainly questioned it. I do not believe that all the agencies can be wrong in their briefing or on what they have said about the recent summit and about GATT. Indeed, I pay tribute to those agencies, and to all those who work in aid and development. They often work under appalling conditions and some of them lose their lives, as we have recently seen.
  Those workers obviously brief hon. Members. They want more aid and are concerned about what is happening. We have to listen to them because, although we may have an opportunity from time to time to go to those countries to see the problems for ourselves, we can never have the breadth of vision, understanding and experience that the people working there have.
  Much attention has been paid to the Trinidad terms and to the whole question of trade. Those terms were welcomed by all in the House. I remember writing at the time that I was pleased that the Government had made a move in that direction. However, the matter does not end there. That is where it began, and things should have developed from there and have gone on apace.
  The Prime Minister told the world leaders in Rio—no one would disagree—
  "No one who has come here can plead ignorance. More people than ever before, one billion, live in abject poverty."
  In the same year, our aid budget for developing countries was frozen until 1996–97. That is disgraceful for a country that is still as rich as ours is.
  One of the big problems which has already been mentioned is debt. That problem enormously undermines the development and growth of third-world countries. The difficulty about debt is that, unless there is a thorough and

  1067
  fundamental shift from the way in which we look at it and what we do about it, the position of third-world and developing countries will not change very much.
  It is estimated that as much as 42 per cent. of the developing world's debt is a result of the deteriorating terms of trade, and that the servicing of that debt accounts for as much as one third of the foreign exports won by African and Latin American countries. The Minister was right to stress the importance of trade, but as long as those countries have to pay off the debt burden at the present level, the benefits of trade are swallowed up and many of them will never be able to repay those debts. That is a tragedy.
  One of the comments made by my hon. Friends was challenged by Conservative Members. The Government were right in 1991 to switch aid so that 81 per cent. of United Kingdom bilateral aid went to the poorest 50 countries, after a great deal of pressure from many agencies and others. Yet focusing on poor countries does not go hand in hand with targeting the poorest communities.
  The United Nations Children's Fund has pointed out that just 9·1 per cent. of bilateral aid was spent on basic needs in 1989. I welcome the shift to the poorest countries, but I believe that we must have a means of monitoring where the aid goes and its effectiveness if we are to reach the world's poorest people. Sadly, we are not reaching them.
  We all agree that trade is vital, but I do not think that we can say that, because we have cut aid, we can now go to trade as an alternative. Debt, trade and aid all hang together. Trade produces six times more income for poor countries than aid does. We all want to reach a position where aid is not necessary because trade is doing the trick for developing countries.
  Sadly, since the early 1970s, the prices paid for developing countries' primary exports have declined by more than 20 per cent., which is a tremendous decline. Over the past two decades, the share of trade of sub-Saharan Africa, about which we are all concerned, has shrunk by almost three quarters to a mere 1 per cent. of world trade. That compares to 19·3 per cent. for developing countries as a whole. Yes, we want to see trade, but we want it to be in a context beneficial to the countries involved.
  The tariff cuts agreed at the G7 summit last week are unlikely, as has been said, to provide many benefits for developing countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) said, it is disappointing that the failure to include tariffs on agricultural products may postpone agreement at the GATT talks on such areas, which are vital for the development of many countries.
  We all agree that trade is important, and the recent Uruguay round will bring some benefits for developing countries. In agriculture, some protectionism and some subsidies will fall, but the poorest countries are likely to be worse off. They will be unable to take advantage of new market opportunities, yet they will have to open up to foreign competition. They will see the relative value of their current trade preferences being undermined.
  Developing service sectors in the third world could be wiped out, and new rules on property will make technology transfer and economic development more difficult. In other words, the poorest countries will be unable to benefit from the good results of many of the recent talks.
  1068
  GATT will have a very limited impact on the common agricultural policy, which has been mentioned in the House again, and again because it discriminates against third-world products. The dumping of European subsidised agricultural products pulls down world prices, creates instability and wipes out markets for poor farmers. It creates dependence on food imports and develops tastes for goods that people can ill afford. The Trinidad terms were welcome, but what took place at the summit recently did very little for the world's poorest people.
  The short and longer-term outlooks for Africa are very bleak. The proportion of debt has increased from the equivalent of 28 per cent. in 1982 to 108 per cent. in 1992. In effect, Britain's bilateral aid and development resources are being diverted back to donor countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World bank in the form of debt repayments. Africa's attempts to extricate itself from that burden are having terrible consequences for the world economy, and are bankrupting low-income families.
  Most of Africa faces a debt service to export ratio of more than 30 per cent., and for some it is more than 100 per cent. Debt servicing is leading to investment starvation, the flight of foreign capital, mounting trade deficits and mass unemployment, and is undermining Africa's ability to repay. The continent avoids defaulting on its debt obligations only by continually rescheduling them, which often undermines the very things and services for which the debt was incurred in the first place. That is the tragedy.
  The Minister referred to population. Of course population control is important. I support it because it liberalises women, who should have the right to liberalise themselves from one pregnancy after another from the time they are 15 until they are 50. But do not let us kid ourselves that population is the cause of poverty in the third world. When we have our dinner tonight, we shall eat more in one meal than many a village in parts of Africa will have in a week. We should not allow it to be said that the third world is consuming too much of the world's resources. It is not true.
  Although population is important from other points of view, I remind all hon. Members that children represent some security for the future. Although population control and family planning can be introduced and should be made available, it will be difficult to persuade people to reduce their families until they are sure that their children will survive and grow up and that they will have some security, and until one deals with the economic problems in developing countries. We consume more in the Tea Room every day than a family in a developing country does in a week, and we should never forget that. The world's resources are very unfairly distributed.
  I wonder whether HIV and AIDS in developing countries have been discussed in any depth, but I do not believe that it was appropriate for them to be discussed at the summit, and therefore make no complaint. What is taking place, in Africa particularly, is heart-breaking and worrying, not only because of the AIDS epidemic among adults, but because thousands of children are being born, and will be born, with the HIV virus. They will be orphaned, and what is to become of them?
  The Government underestimate the effect of AIDS in this country, and have cut the grant to some charities—but that is another story. At some time, however, the developing nations must consider what is happening to

  1069
  AIDS in developing and third-world countries and take it seriously. I am pleased that some organisations, backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, have co-operated to develop a programme, working with non-governmental organisa-tions in those countries to give them the benefit of the information that we and others have on HIV in order to tackle that grave and frightening problem.
  Anyone who has seen a country in that situation knows that any discussion about third-world development, especially in relation to Africa, cannot go on without taking into consideration what is happening in this respect.
  Finally, I was glad to get some information today to show that my friends in the Baby Milk Action Campaign disrupted the annual general meeting of Nestle to point out its disgraceful campaign to persuade mothers in developing countries not to breast-feed their children, but to feed them Nestle products. We used to call it "Nessels" when I was a child, but I believe that it is "Nessleys" these days.
  Yes, there has been some progress through the World Health Organisation to stop the advertising. We were all sickened to see healthy, beautiful black women with babies sucking a bottle when those babies should be breast-fed because it is better for babies anyway. I am delighted that my friends disrupted the meeting and tried to get Nestle—it is not the only company, but it is the main one—to explain why it continues to provide and promote its milk products in developing countries. It is an absolute scandal that that should take place.
  How can UNICEF and all the organisations that are doing so much to immunise and protect children against disease possibly work against that background? They are trying to persuade mothers to breast-feed because of the protection it gives, yet as a result of advertising, babies are dying. It is estimated that hundreds of babies are dying because they are not being breast-fed, but instead are being put on milk products when there is no clean water, and water and even bottles cannot be sterilised. It is a disgrace, and I hope that all hon. Members condemn it.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on raising this subject today. We cannot separate one item from another. We cannot say that it does not matter so much about aid, that yes, we have cut it, but look what we are doing on trade, and that we have done a little to reduce debt, so let us congratulate ourselves. Congratulation does not come into it. All these items hang together. Unless those of use who are fortunate enough to live in rich countries look at it in that way, one item will be set off against another. I welcome the debate, but I hope that in future we recognise that we are slipping badly in the aid stakes, and that we do something about it.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I start by expressing my appreciation to the Opposition for choosing this matter for debate this evening. The subject cannot arise too often. I regret the slight slant in the motion. It should not be forgotten that, in the late 1980s, this Government and the noble Lord Lawson, as he now is, led the way on debt repayment. This country wrote off
  1070
  more than £1 billion-worth of debt and raised the profile of debt write-off with the rest of the industrial world. That should not be forgotten in the House or the country.
  I am aware of the time, and the fact that others wish to speak, so my contribution will be much shorter than I should have liked it to be. I welcome the wording of the Government amendment. It puts the truth of the position. It does no harm to see it put firmly on the record that the Government
  "welcomes the agreements by the G7 countries in Tokyo to consider improved debt reduction terms for the poorest and more indebted countries, including the possibility of earlier action on reducing the stock of debt on a case by case basis in accordance with the Prime Minister's Trinidad Terms initiative."
  In the past, this country and others have given money on various repayment terms to countries that have mishandled it. We have wasted our money in trying to help. It has gone to people and into accounts that it should not have got near. I should like to think that today we are much more careful in giving taxpayers' money to help bridge the gap between the industrial world and third-world countries.
  Far too often, industrial countries muddle the differentiation between support for home industry and overseas aid. We need a vigorous debate to differentiate between grant support for third-world countries and boosts that are necessary from time to time to help home industry engaged in exporting or in need of some inducement to expand.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) spoke most tellingly about the difference between the industrial world and the third world, and the way in which that gap is expanding. In military terms, it is almost like people with bows and arrows trying to compete with those with machine guns. It is the duty of the industrial world to try to ensure that that gap does not become an unreasonable and unacceptable difference.
  We have a duty to decide when our help is to be a grant, and when it is to be a loan. We should not muddle that. We should not give loans and then decide that they should be grants. We must make that decision right at the start. We must be far more caring and differentiating about where we give that support, and in that way show an example to other countries. We have heard quotations already this evening about how some of them operate. We must lead the way in the third world countries by giving the money as a grant. We should not expect to get the money back at a later stage.
  I should mention again the slight confusion that has emerged over the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It developed substantial funds over the years. It has a capital base of nearly £800 million, and can recycle its surpluses every single year. It does not require net new capital every year to sustain its programme. It should be able to sustain gross new lending of some £200 million a year.
  I suggest that it is misleading to give the impression that the Government have somehow cut its support. It will provide new loans in the years to come, and while its lending will not exceed the levels of past loan repayments, it will certainly help us go on into the future.
  As a moment of mild chiding, I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), who made various comments about the banks. Some of those written-off debts have come back,

  1071
  but I suggest that many of our banks have loaned considerable sums of money on an ill-advised basis to the third world and have written off billions of pounds, which is paid for today by many British account holders and taxpayers. Should we dismiss that lightly? The banks are getting some money back, but they have had to bear tremendous pain in writing off ill-advised debts in the past.
  Those who have had the forbearance to listen to me in the past on trade and industry will know that I believe that we should help our exporters and our various industrial activities. However, to come back to my original point, we should not muddle the difference between the giving of aid and our support for our exporting and internal industries. If we make that division clearer, we shall benefit the whole world.
  9.27 pm
  Mr. John Battle: It is appropriate that this debate on the G7 summit, on which I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), should follow yesterday's debate. Within the past 24 hours we have debated clause 42 of the Finance Bill, which would force through VAT on fuel and thus create real poverty in Britain. What concerns me is that there are real connections to be made between the economic, social and political projects undertaken by the Government here and what is happening throughout the third world as a result of the economic and political policies pursued by the industrial nations.
  I refer particularly to the pursuit of economic policies worldwide that have deliberately generated high levels of unemployment, lowered wages levels and undermined collective trade union rights. There has also been the build-up of massive public and private debt, pressure to reduce direct taxation, switches to regressive indirect taxation, drastic reductions in welfare state provision and the privatisation of essential common services.
  I do not have much time in which to speak in the debate. However, I once had the privilege of meeting the Economics Minister for Benin, who was invited to go to the Paris Club meeting to renegotiate IMF terms on behalf of his country. He expressed surprise to me that at that meeting people from the western world, people from Britain, should ask why Benin did not do as Britain had done and privatise the water supply. Benin did not have a water supply, so it was a most inappropriate policy. In other words, the free market economic agenda is wrapped up by the IMF and the World bank in the language of structural adjustment, but it is the same ideological model superimposed at home and internationally.
  Others have spoken about the needs of Africa and they should be high on our agenda. I shall not repeat what has been said about the needs of Africa, but we need some fresh, new, imaginative strategic thinking. I simply quote the President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, who, at her press conference at the end of her visit to Somalia last October, said:
  "There needs to be a great deal more urgency about the situation. It is not acceptable that human beings are in the degrading, humiliating situation in which they find themselves, because we really have to stand back and say: 'it diminishes all of us as human beings'. I felt shamed by what I saw. Shamed. Shamed. On behalf of the European world, and the American world, and the developed world generally. What are we doing that we have not got greater conscience for it?"
  1072
  She went on:
  "Not only Somalis, but also the Horn of Africa in general, need new strategies, need new lateral thinking about our relationship with the continent of Africa. They need not just the United Nations and their international organisations and governments to be engaged, but women's groups, business associations, and others, to have a direct linkage of accepting responsibility."
  I reiterate that plea for lateral thinking and for an injection of imagination and urgency.
  Recently, a small African country, Eritrea, became independent. There was and still is great international pressure for good governance. But weeks after that country's independence a conference on the programme for the reintegration of refugees and the rehabilitation of the resettlement areas of Eritrea was held in Geneva on 6 July under the auspices of the United Nations. Apart from support for food aid and repatriation, Eritrea received pledges of only $16 million towards the $77 million requested for development.
  In other words, if the promising movement towards peace and democracy now being developed in several African countries is to be supported and sustained, the flow of aid for development must be maintained and we must not move in the opposite direction. The British Government have been one of those pushing hardest for good government and democracy and are, accordingly, under a moral obligation to back the pressure with positive development aid.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). His reference to the words of Mary Robinson reminds us that the fact that I billion people in the world simply do not have the means to exist from day to day diminishes us all.
  It is impossible to explain Somalia without remembering who armed that country. It is impossible to explain the problems of Brazil without bearing in mind the demands for tropical hardwoods. It is wrong of us to think that our actions are simply benign. It is wrong for us simply to say that, because the IMF and the World bank were set up with good intentions, they automatically have a good impact now.
  During the past year, the idea that has struck me most comes from the writings of Susan George on the debt boomerang. She says that if we do not tackle these problems we may think that we are just casting off part of the world, but it will come back and hit us. It will come back and hit us on the population, the migration, the debt and the drugs fronts. If we do not turn our minds more consistently to the problems of the third world, we shall live to regret it.
  What is Britain's record in this area? I want first to consider our aid record. We cannot ignore the most tangible fault, which is that there was a public commitment to 0·7 per cent. of GDP from which we ares retreating year by year. The level is now 0·31 per cent. compared with 0·1 per cent. when Labour was in power. The fact that the Government have the worst growth record of any Government since the war means that the developing world is even worse off. In fact, I suspect that there is a cunning plan by the Government to attain the 0·7 per cent. target by shrinking the economy.
  The developing world is threatened even more by the presence of the needy in the east of Europe. It is clear from

  1073
  the Foreign Secretary's choice of budget that he prefers to increase the contribution to eastern and central Europe and to cut the contribution to the developing world during the next three years. The Foreign Secretary must defend that.
  The Government's defence of their aid record is extraordinary—it is that this country's aid is good. Therefore, apparently, the Government are to cut it. I could understand the defence being that they did not want to put good money after bad. But to cut aid because this country does it well is a strange defence indeed. That is especially true as the Government now distribute a higher and higher proportion of aid in a less and less efficient way. A higher proportion goes to the World bank and the IMF.
  We have heard much about the damage that is done by the debt policies of those institutions, with more going through the EC. There is widespread concern that directorate-general VIII of the EC under Mr. Marin is less than efficient—even perverse—in its distribution.
  Why is more and more of our aid to be deployed in a less and less efficient way? We have heard, if not convincingly, from the Prime Minister that the most vulnerable in this country will be protected from the public expenditure cuts that are on their way. We need to know from the Minister whether the poorest people in the world will be protected, or will they suffer from the dreadful hole which the Government is in?
  What else have the Government done in terms of aid and development? They have disappointed many people by their failure to take the lead in many areas. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) reminded us of that. Africa regards this country as the pre-eminent European power, and the people of Africa look to us for guidance, certainly with regard to the World bank and IMF. The British director of that organisation holds enormous power over development policies in Africa. It is in Africa, however, that the World bank and IMF policies have failed the most. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) pointed out that more money comes out of Africa now than is put in.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe valuably pointed out, as he usually does, the amount of money that is spent on emergency relief. The reason for that is that we failed in many cases to take preventive steps early enough by diplomatic initiatives. [Interruption.] Well, I went to Somalia last year and they had plenty of water and plenty of problems. The world was deaf to Somalia for a whole year because our diplomats in Nairobi did not go to Somalia. They were forbidden to go by the Foreign Office.
  If we cannot get accurate information, how can we take preventive action? The tragic situation in Somalia today, with the military intervention going wrong, has resulted from our failure to act in time. We failed to encourage the UN to take the necessary diplomatic initiatives, and we must look to the United Kingdom to take the lead in the matter.
  As the Minister knows, I am also fearful about the situation in Sudan, where there is a 10-year-old civil war. I compliment the action of the Foreign Office in that case, and also the action by our ambassador in Sudan. But we should take preventive action by taking the issue to the United Nations Security Council. I am pleased that the Minister who has responsibility for foreign trade is to answer the debate, as it gives the House a chance to bring
  1074
  some of the issues together. He will be able to explain what the poorest of the world have gained or will gain from the G7 and GATT.
  There are several major worries. Very painfully, a series of Lomé conventions—we are now up to Lomé 4—negotiated trade concessions for the poorer countries, but there are fears that GATT will wipe them out. I hope that the Minister will tell us that it is this country's objective to stop putting higher tariffs on value added goods from the third world.
  Perhaps the Minister will also tell us what GATT will do about the present shameful situation whereby, through the World bank, we demand that developing countries stop subsidising their food, but we then dump subsidised EC food on them, which is what happens with beef in west Africa. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) mentioned the destruction of the sugar cane industry in that way.
  If we agree that trade is more important than aid, why, under the British presidency, was an EC development policy produced which did not mention the common agricultural policy or trade policy in general?
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Is it not a fact that successive Ministers have, through our aid budget, committed us step by step to EC programmes which lead to long-term reductions in available resources for bilateral programmes? We are being locked in incrementally so that we may not even be able to reverse the process unless there is a drastic change in the near future.
  Mr. Worthington: Indeed, and that point has already been made. The reason we are locked in is that our aid is shrinking. It would be possible to increase our contribution to other organisations if we were expanding the overall amount of aid.
  It has been generally agreed that debt is a matter of the utmost importance. I, too, compliment the Prime Minister on the Trinidad terms which we agree is a valuable initiative. However, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and confirmed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, 91 per cent. of the debt of sub-Saharan Africa is to the international financial institutions, to the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. What can we do about that, when the constitution of those bodies forbids them to cancel debt? All that they can do is to roll over the debt from year to year. We have to ask what is going to happen to the great burden of debt which is owed to the IMF and the World bank, which now take out far more than they put in.
  The World bank and the IMF are in a crisis. What can we do to make their policies more transparent? Why can we not know how our director at the World bank has voted? The Americans can. Why should an unknown civil servant and the International Development Association, which we debated on Monday evening, be allowed to spend £620 million of taxpayers' money without accounting for it? Why can we not know what is being done to increase accountability in the World bank? Why can we not know how the British director is voting on issues concerning where sustainable development is being damaged by World bank projects? What safeguards are being put in place?
  The Government must surely learn from the recent scandal surrounding the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It was an organisation

  1075
  which went out of control, ran amok and became self-serving. How do we know that that is not happening in the World bank or the IMF? The World bank has admitted that an increasing proportion of its projects are failing. What are we going to do to put that right?
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us the World bank's philosophy, which we are supporting. It is clear that a struggle is going on in the World bank. I should like to refer to two points that have been made recently. One of them came from Larry Summers, who was previously the chief economist at the World bank—obviously a very influential person. What he said contradicted a point made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. Summers said that investment in the education of girls provides far the best possible economic return through World bank activities.
  The ironic thing is that the World bank and the IMF, because of their programmes, are seen as having so substantially damaged the education and health of people in the third world. Are we supporting that, or are we supporting the structural adjustment programmes?
  Which side does the Minister take on the question of the struggle within the World bank with regard to debt? Does he take the side of Mr. Edward Jaycox, the vice-president for Africa, who said that the policies of the bank have been
  "disastrous in terms of building up the capacity of Africa to solve its own problems"?
  The bank, he said, had completely failed to build up Africa's trained and skilled manpower and its institutions. The amount going into the salaries of expatriate advisers, of whom there are 100,000 in sub-Saharan Africa, was $4 billion. Do the Government agree with Mr. Jaycox?
  What is the World bank policy that the Minister supports? Why cannot we be told what philosophy the Government adopt when they go to the World bank? Debt is by far the most crushing problem facing sub-Saharan Africa.
  Unless the Government can give us some optimism about new thinking—lateral or of whatever other type—on how the debt burden on sub-Saharan Africa might be lifted, we will have wasted our words in this Chamber today.
  9.46 pm
  The Minister of Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): I do not intend to go into the debate that took place on Monday night, the report of which I read with great interest. I have a short time to wind up for the Government, but if I am unable to cover particular points that have been raised I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
  As this is an Opposition Supply day, the Government are entitled not only to defend their position but to look into some of the polices behind the Opposition's attitude to the whole question of debt, trade and development. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) that we have taken the lead on debt relief for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. I am glad that Opposition Members have given the Prime Minister credit and support for what he has done. We are taking a lead with our targeted aid programme and we have taken the lead on expanding world trade—a matter to which I shall come in a moment. In all these areas, our strategy is the same: to give developing countries as much of a stake as
  1076
  possible in the world economy. This matter was well referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
  I accept that the debt crisis is not over—not least for many countries in Africa. We recognise this, as did the Tokyo summit. It is clear that there will be further financial assistance to help these countries. However, the Government have a good story to tell about debt relief for the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. We have constantly led the way in promoting international agreement on debt relief—through Toronto terms in 1988, through Trinidad terms in 1991, and now in our push for improved Trinidad terms. As my hon. Friend said, the current terms have so far benefited 17 of the poorest countries, to the tune of nearly $2 billion. I am glad that, on the question of the number of countries, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is getting his arithmetic corrected.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Needham: No. I did not put any question to the hon. Gentleman, but I should like to put one to Opposition Members generally.
  We are constantly asked about the 0·7 per cent. of GNP contribution to aid. It was referred to today by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). It is the aim of all of us to reach that contribution level, but how do we get to it? It is easy to call for more aid, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West did, but it is much less easy to balance that against calls for more spending on health, education, social services, transport and every other area of public expenditure. The hon. Member for Oldham, West and his hon. Friends must face up to that difficulty.
  How does the hon. Member for Oldham, West envisage that that contribution will be made in the light of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)? He has said that the Labour party is not proposing to raise income tax, national insurance, VAT or current borrowing. How does the hon. Member for Oldham, West square his call for an increased aid budget with the Leader of the Opposition? He has said that the Labour party will oppose the tax increases that are being imposed by the Government. He has also made it clear that the Opposition are not in favour of cuts in public expenditure when public services are in straitened circumstances.
  Where is the hon. Member for Oldham, West going to find the extra £2 billion for his aid budget over the course of a Parliament if he intends to follow the advice given by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East and the Leader of the Opposition? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the figures do not add up. However important we may say the aid budget is, the hon. Gentleman cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and pretend to us that his policy is credible.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Uruguay round and the Tokyo summit and how they had failed the developing world. He said that they were a disaster. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged, however, that ActionAid has said that trade produces six times more income for the poor countries than aid. What would the hon. Gentleman have said if the Tokyo summit had failed to reach an agreement on GATT? That would have been a true disaster.

  1077
  I do not underestimate the importance of the problems of Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, but did the hon. Member for Oldham, West ever mention China? No. Indonesia was mentioned only by one of my hon. Friends. Vietnam, India, Pakistan, the Philippines—some of the poorest countries in the world, which stand to benefit most from improved trade—were never mentioned by Opposition Members.
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that, on top of restructuring debt to assist the poorest nations, Great Britain is the first to respond to famine, drought and disease all over the world? Our Hercules are in the air with surplus supplies straightaway. We can be very proud of our overseas aid. We lead the world.
  Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend. Wherever disasters occur, British support and British service personnel are there.
  The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) asked whether all tariffs will be abolished under the Uruguay round. He referred specifically to commodities. The hon. Gentleman knows full well, however, that not all tariffs will be abolished through negotiations under the Uruguay round. The important point is that those tariffs will be slashed and that will do a great deal to benefit the poorer countries of the world.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the effect of the GATT round on the developing world. The OECD study for 1992 estimated that the increase in developing countries' annual income from a successful Uruguay round could be more than $90 billion per year. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is more than the total aid budgets of the OECD countries. We do not underestimate the importance of aid, but we agree with the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that trade is much more important than aid.
  The Opposition's policy on that will have exactly the opposite effect to what they intend because, although the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie talks about the need to open markets and ensure that goods from developing countries can be freely traded in this country, a short time later some Opposition Members come to see me, leading delegations of people who want to stop goods coming here from developing countries on the basis of social dumping. I could give the hon. Gentleman a list—I shall not do so tonight—of delegations led by his hon. Friends saying that they do not want goods from China, the Philippines, or the poorer parts of north Africa because it is social dumping. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. Worthington: Which of the countries with structural adjustment programmes still have tariff barriers? Apart from the multi-fibre arrangement—eventually—will any EC barriers come down as a consequence of the Tokyo summit?
  Mr. Needham: Of course EC barriers will come down as a consequence of the GATT round. They will come down across the whole range. Once we achieve an agreement on GATT, there will be massive tariff reductions.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the multi-fibre arrangement. We agree that textiles, as a commodity,
  1078
  should be phased out. Naturally, that should be done over a reasonable time, but it is one way to remove barriers to developing countries' exports. We would not deny them the opportunities to compete in that sector, which is why the United Kingdom supports the phasing out of textiles as a commodity and better access to our markets.
  However, that was not always the view of Opposition Members. I have articles, admittedly from 1985, entitled
  "Labour's plan to save the textile makers"
  and
  "Labour aims to curtail flood of textile imports"—
  [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked about the multi-fibre arrangement and I am saying what the Leader of the Opposition's view was on that. The Labour party will find themselves in a muddle when trying to devise a policy to help developing countries because of their economic policy at home.
  The Government believe that we must assist companies to invest in the third world. British companies know better than Opposition Members about the benefits of United Kingdom investment in the developing world. Direct investment by United Kingdom companies in the developing world is very large. In 1991, our companies invested £1·4 billion in developing countries, representing some 16 per cent. of foreign direct investment. That is how to create jobs, develop the industrial base, transfer technology and enhance economic capacity.
  Opposition Members still prefer to talk about handouts instead of persuading British companies to provide long-term jobs because the effect of the Opposition's economic policy at home is to increase costs and deny developing countries the opportunity to send their products here. Last Monday the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) showed the true colours of his party. He said that we should
  "reintroduce exchange controls and introduce import controls".—[Official Report, 12 July 1993; Vol. 228, c. 681.]
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West laughs. He may disown those views, but if Opposition Members stand for the minimum wage and the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty, and then say that they want free trade, what are the consequences for workers in this country? What does that add up to for the workers in this country? What will happen to the workers of the developing world who want to export their goods into a country where such additional add-on costs will put our people out of work? The result will be that ever-larger numbers of delegations of hon. Members will come to my office to try to ensure that the goods stop coming in.
  The choice before the House is clear: do we offer developing countries investment, training, technology, jobs and an opportunity to buy and sell in the markets of the world—as the Government believe—or do we follow the Opposition path of minimum wages, minimum hours and maximum trade barriers, which will be the inevitable consequences of their policy?
  I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's contradictory position, reject protectionism, and reject an approach which encourages continued dependency for developing countries. I urge the House to support our policy of enabling developing countries to support themselves through the tools of overseas investment and free trade.
  Mr. Don Dixon rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 314.

  Division No. 334]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Ainger, Nick

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Eastham, Ken

  Allen, Graham

  Enright, Derek

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fatchett, Derek

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Fraser, John

  Bell, Stuart

  Fyfe, Maria

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  Benton, Joe

  Garrett, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Betts, Clive

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blunkett, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Boateng, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyce, Jimmy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boyes, Roland

  Gould, Bryan

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

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

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Hain, Peter

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Henderson, Doug

  Cann, Jamie

  Heppell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cox, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Bob

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jamieson, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Janner, Greville

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dixon, Don

  Keen, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  1080

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prescott, John

  Leighton, Ron

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry

  Radice, Giles

  Litherland, Robert

  Randall, Stuart

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Redmond, Martin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Reid, Dr John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rendel, David

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Richardson, Jo

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  McKelvey, William

  Rogers, Allan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  McLeish, Henry

  Rooney, Terry

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rowlands, Ted

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Madden, Max

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mahon, Alice

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Clare

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Simpson, Alan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Milburn, Alan

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stott, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Straw, Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Walley, Joan

  Mudie, George

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mullin, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Murphy, Paul

  Watson, Mike

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Olner, William

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Audrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Worthington, Tony

  Patchett, Terry

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Pope, Greg

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. Jack Thompson and

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Mr. John Spellar.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bates, Michael

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alexander, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Ashby, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Atkins, Robert

  Booth, Hartley

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Bowis, John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  1081

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Burt, Alistair

  Hague, William

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Harris, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Nick

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Conway, Derek

  Horam, John

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cran, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Dover, Den

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Key, Robert

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evennett, David

  Legg, Barry

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fry, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, David

  Gallie, Phil

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  1082

  Mates, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Merchant, Piers

  Spring, Richard

  Milligan, Stephen

  Sproat, Iain

  Mills, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Steen, Anthony

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stephen, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stern, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stewart, Allan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sykes, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  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

  Tracey, Richard

  Pickles, Eric

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trotter, Neville

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Walden, George

  Richards, Rod

  Waller, Gary

  Riddick, Graham

  Ward, John

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Watts, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

  Willetts, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wood, Timothy

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. James Arbuthnot

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, noting the problems of indebtedness and restricted trade access in hampering thegrowth ofdeveloping countries, welcomes the agreements by the G7 countries in Tokyo to consider improved debt reduction terms for the poorest and most indebted countries, including the possibility of earlier action on reducing the stock of debt on a case by case basis in accordance with the Prime Minister's Trinidad Terms initiative, to make all efforts to enhance development assistance, and to seek to achieve a successful Uruguay Round before the end of the year.

  BRITISH NATIONALITY
  Ordered,
  That the draft British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnicki.]
  Ordered,
  That the draftbution>Hong Kong (British Nationality) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

PETITIONS

  New Town, Cambridgeshire
  10.16 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents. The views that it contains are supported by many more of my constituents; local, district and county councillors; and me.
  The petition concerns a wholly absurd proposal to build a new settlement in the heart of my constituency. I have twice explained the objections on the Floor of the House, once as long ago as six years. The petition reads:
  The Petition of the Parishioners of twelve parishes around and including Bourne and Caxton in the county of Cambridgeshire—
  which may not be wholly unfamiliar to you, Madam Speaker—
  whose names and signatures are included herein declares that there is a substantial case against the application for planning consent to build a new town in the locality and for which there is no need. Particular attention is drawn to the state of the housing market and to the new lower housing need estimates published by the County Council as compared to those current at the time of the inquiry. Another material matter is the recently revised and lower status of the A45 west of Cambridge. The dualling of this road was identified by the inspector as a vital factor in site location. Further that the question of traffic generation through Bourn village has not been adequately addressed in the spirit suggested by the Minister in his decision letter. If built the new town would irreparably damage the environs of many local village communities. The Petitioners herein respectfully and earnestly request the House of Commons to call upon the Minister to give adequate direction to those charged with the consideration of the issues by firmly declaring that Government advice in the form of planning policy guidelines should be carefully consulted to take account of those matters where material and significant changes have occurred in the planning context since the public inquiry. Further that these changes are sufficient in themselves to justify the Minister calling in the competing applications and decide that circumstances having changed so dramatically since the inquiry there is no useful purpose to be served in pursuing the concept of a new settlement in this locality. The Petitioners herein remain your obedient servants and humbly wait upon the pleasure of the House.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Wellfield Hospital
  10.19 pm
  Mr. David Evans: I am privileged to have the opportunity to present a petition on behalf of the Wellfield hospital action group. The petition, which has been signed by over 2,000 of my constituents, concerns the wellbeing of the former residents of Wellfield hospital. These people are, in the last years of their lives, unhappy and isolated from their families in their present location in Wellfield ward 2, East Herts hospital, Stansted road, Hertford.
  The situation has been brought about by total mismanagement on the part of North West Thames regional health authority, under the chairmanship of Sir William Doughty, and its officers. Promises were made to the petitioners, which have been blatantly disregarded to allow further funding of the new Westminster and Chelsea hospital.

  1085
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will recognise our call—by the Wellfield hospital action group—
  upon the East Herts NHS trust to rebuild Wellfield Hospital IMMEDIATELY. And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Bypass, Ambleside
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I have the honour to present to the House a petition sent to me by my constituent, Mr. Cook, of Ambleside. You will know, Madam Speaker, that Ambleside is one of the great jewels of the Lake district. The petition has been put together by Mr. Cook and eight stalwart canvassers. They have approached, or tried to contact, virtually all my 2,250 constituents who are on the electoral roll in Ambleside. They succeeded in contacting 1,314 people—that is, 58·4 per cent. of the total electoral roll.
  The petition is about the need to construct a bypass round Ambleside. The petition says:
  The excessive volume of traffic on the A591 road through our town is causing unacceptable levels of congestion, noise, pollution and delay, making the everyday commerce of the town difficult, dangerous and unpleasant for its residents, and further threatening its prosperity by rendering it unattractive to the visitors on whom its economic wellbeing depends.
  Of the 1,314 people approached, no fewer than 1,046—that is, 79·6 per cent.—voted for a bypass, compared with 188, or 14·3 per cent., who were against, and 80, or 6·1 per cent., who abstained.
  This is a remarkable petition. It means that those who expressed their desire to have a bypass constituted 46·5 per cent. of the total electorate. Their purpose was to demonstrate to the House their hope that the petition would finally enshrine the overwhelming desire of the people of Ambleside to put a stop to the appalling traffic congestion in that beautiful town, and that a bypass would be constructed.
  The petition ends:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take measures to require the highway authority, Cumbria county council, to initiate the construction of a bypass road following the route described as the orange route in that council's 1992 consultative documents, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Sub-post Offices
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg leave to present a petition against the removal by the Government of the right to receive pension and benefit payments at local sub-post offices.
  1086
  The petition was collected by sub-postmasters and postmistresses and by pensioners and claimants in York, to whom I pay tribute. It is signed by county councillor Janet Lucker, of Clifton Dale, York, and by L. W. Quinn, the secretary of York Labour party, of Bramble Dene, Woodthorpe, York. The petition is supported by me and it reads as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland assembled. The Humble Petition of the people of York Sheweth that the Government is proposing to make compulsory the method of paying pensions and other benefits by Automated Credit Transfer and that we, the undersigned, vigorously protest against this proposal for the following reasons:

  (1) The small post office is very often the hub of the community, performing a very important social service.

  (2) Many small post offices rely on paying pensions and other benefits to survive.

  (3) Many people rely on the post office to cash their benefits and in some cases may not have a bank account.

  (4) Compulsory payment of benefits by automated credit transfer takes away choice from people.

  The petition is signed by 9,367 of my constituents and concludes with the following words:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Social Services to give people the right to choose to receive pension and benefit payments at their local post office, recognising the benefits of this to the individual and community.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  VAT on Fuel
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Barnsley who protest against the Government's decision to impose value added tax on domestic fuel and power.
  The petition of the residents of Barnsley, some 2,000, in total,
  Sheweth that the recent disgraceful announcement of VAT increases on gas and electricity bills has filled the people of Barnsley with deep concern because of the consequential hardship these increases will have on old age pensioners, one parent families and, in general, poorer members of society. They believe these increases to be to the long-term detriment of those least well off in Barnsley and throughout the nation. Hundreds of people of Barnsley have expressed their concern by signing this petitiin because they feel they are neither economically or socially justified.
  The petitioners end their petition by saying:
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will take measures to see that these increases will not proceed because of the social and economic hardship for pensioners, one parent families and communities.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hip Replacement Operations
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: This is a remarkable story. It is about a scandal at the heart of the national health service, leading to a wanton waste of millions of pounds and to an immeasurable and unnecessary amount of human suffering. Forty thousand hip operations take place in Britain every year. They provide renewed mobility and an end to acute suffering for the great majority of those who receive them. In part, it is a great success story. However, there is another side to it.
  Many senior surgeons have expressed deep anxieties about the Government's policy. Earlier this year, the British Orthopaedic Association withdrew from discussions with the Government over best practice guidelines. The main charge is that there has been a deterioration in the quality of operations, possibly as a result of over-emphasis on the quantity of operations.
  The number of failed operations has mushroomed. In the 1980s, the number of failures trebled to 12 per cent and it is feared that that rate will rise to 33 per cent. In an article in the British Medical Journal in March this year, Dr. Bulstrode, a former orthopaedic surgeon at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, described what he called "designer hips". They are newly developed implants that are expensively designed. Factories are tooled up and the product is developed and marketed at great cost. Most designer hips are indistinguishable from the traditional hips that have existed for a long time. Some of the new ones are successful, but others fail—they usually quietly disappear from the scene without leaving a trace because there is no register of failures.
  The standard traditional hip replacement—mainly the Charnley, which was designed about 30 years ago—can be sold for as little as £100 and has a failure rate of less than 1 per cent. per year. The newer "designer" implants can cost up to £1,500. Most are untested and unproven and some are failing within four to five years.
  I would like to present precise figures of what has been happening in the United Kingdom, but that is impossible—not because I have not diligently prepared for this debate, but because the figures are simply not known. On 14 February, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health told me that the Government have no record of the success and failure rates of hip prostheses used in this country. Luckily, one country has done the work. Sweden has conducted detailed research on 93,000 hip replacements. Among many other useful bits of information, it was discovered that one implant—the Christensen hip—has an atrocious record. It was used in more than 5,000 operations and virtually not one of them lasted four years.
  The cost of that designer hip is an estimated $20 million in the revision operations required, plus the anguish of the thousands of victims. Do we know if there has been a similar mass failure here? There has almost certainly been such a mass failure, but we have no knowledge of it because so many of the prostheses that have been introduced in the past 20 years have quietly disappeared without any national record.
  1088
  In 1971, there was only one type of implant—the Charnley. There are at least 34 on the market now. Dr. Bulstrode said:
  "There is now more money in design than in success rates. Every year there is a new colour, a new shape, a new coating."
  He estimates that if every surgeon used the most reliable model, the annual cost of revision operations would be £200 million. If we continue to use unproven implants, the cost will rise to about £600 million in the next 10 years.
  In July 1992, the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin had this to say:
  "There are no formal controls for new joint designs nor for their marketing. The newer hips should be considered experimental and this should be made explicit when seeking the patient's informed consent to surgery."
  How can clinicians, let alone patients, exercise choice? How can they make informed decisions? There are no statutory tests that hip replacements must satisfy before they can be marketed, nor is there any centrally held information. I recently asked the Secretary of State for Health what plans she had to introduce a national register. She told me that she had no such plans. The manufacturing registration scheme of the Department of Health is voluntary and has in no way deterred manufacturers from launching suspect and unproven designs. The Government lack the courage to compel manufacturers to meet statutory standards and to subject them to the kind of close monitoring that takes place in the United States and in many other countries.
  A point strongly made in the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 1991 on elective surgery was why it was that drugs had to undergo rigorous tests before they could be introduced and prescribed when implants were treated differently. The dangers are just as great. The damage caused by an inadequate hip implant is not easily rectified. Dr. Michael Wroblewski—Charnley's successor in Wigan, where the technique was pioneered—says:
  "The first time is the best time. After that it is salvage."
  When the first operation is carried out, a great deal of the good, healthy bone has to be sacrificed. In perhaps his most stark comment, Dr. Bulstrode said:
  "I could go home tonight, knock up a hip in the garden shed, bring it in tomorrow, sterilise it and just whack it into a patient and there's no law in the land to stop me."
  Revision operations drain NHS resources and lengthen waiting lists. They take nearly twice as long as primary operations and require longer hospital stays. One revision means that two primary operations have to be cancelled.
  The Government have long been obsessed with the methods and the language of the market. Increasingly, they apply their ideology to everything, including health care. Understandable concern about waiting times has spurred the Government into precipitate action. The Government have maximised bed throughput by minimising standards. The modern health service manager is subjected to performance-related pay and has one overriding objective—to treat as many patients as possible. That is the measure of successful management and, in isolation, it is extremely dangerous and damaging. Higher productivity cannot be the sole criterion when the raw material is a human patient. The value of an operation cannot be measured by knocking one number off the waiting list. It must be assessed carefully over months and years.
  Specialist orthopaedic surgeons have a high success rate. It is surprising to know that in Britain we have the

  1089
  lowest percentage of specialist orthopaedic surgeons of any western country. What is happening with the conveyor-belt surgery that is being cranked up to maximum productivity is that more and more nonspecialists are being employed. The specialist hip or orthopaediecentres are losing patients to general hospitals simply because they happen to have a surgeon available. A short-term reduction in waiting lists is followed by an influx of patients requiring revision. A report in The Guardian quotes one specialist, Mr. Khalid Drabu, a consultant surgeon at East Surrey hospital, as saying:
  "An artificial hip can and should last 15 to 20 years, but we've got a tidal wave of patients returning within four to eight years and many sooner."
  What do the Government offer? Answers to parliamentary questions reveal that the Government have no register of revisions, no statistics on which implants fail, no database to explain what is happening and no study—there is one study of Trent—as comprehensive as the Swedish one which would identify the rogue prostheses. They have no plan and they have no strategy, except perhaps the lame excuse that was given to me in a letter—that the European Community would come galloping to their rescue.
  In a letter to me, the Minister says that a European CE marking will apply to hip implants, and that it is intended to come into force
  "on I January 1995 with a transitional period that will extend to about mid 1998."
  That is five long years away, whereas the misery, the tragedy and the waste is happening now, and is still evolving—a great medical scandal. We need action from the Minister now. We need him to say tonight that he will commit himself to setting up a national register of hip replacements which will identify the rogue prostheses and the least competent surgeons, both of which are formidable elements in the scandal that we are discussing.
  We want immediate short-term studies on new operations. These can be done easily. It is possible to measure accurately through minute X-rays the tiny migrations that take place in the first six months after an operation. That can be plotted to show what will happen over the next five or, indeed, 20 years. The technology is there. We must do that now.
  We need a thorough investigation into the selling and marketing of prostheses by manufacturers. We hear odd stories of inducements being offered. We know of cases in which improper commercial pressures are being put on surgeons and others in the health service. We need more professionally trained orthopaedic surgeons. We need a system of audit that rewards NHS managers and medical staff for the quality, not the quantity, of their work.
  These are not new concerns. This letter was written by Mr. Michael Freeman, the present president of the British Orthopaedic Association. He demands that we take steps to prevent
  "the unlimited proliferation of indistinguishably different or bad prostheses".
  That letter was written on 13 November 1973. Some 20 years later another distinguished orthopaedic surgeon wrote to Mr. Freeman, pointing out that that 1973 letter probably initiated the interest of orthopaedic surgeons in the field. He said:
  1090
  "For all these years we have been struggling to get some scheme off the ground. The sadness is that even when it had been accepted by all the various bodies, even the Minister himself, absolutely nothing happened."
  That letter was written on 25 March thi s year.
  There have been 20 years of vain struggle. The legacy of Government inactivity is now exacerbated by market forces coming into the health service. Inducements are offered by greedy profiteers. The tradition of care, high science and best quality medicine is being corrupted by the Government's devotion to market forces.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on obtaining an Adjournment debate on this important topic. The debate is timely and I know that he has a long-standing, close personal interest in the topic. Not many people would give up the chance of representing Britain in the 400 metre hurdles in next year's Olympic games just to have an Adjournment debate on hip and knee joint replacement surgery.
  My hon. Friend rightly referred to the topic of the debate as yet another scandal story about how the health service operates. I am pleased that, although I am speaking as Labour's Front-Bench health spokesman in Wales, it is the Government's English Under-Secretary of State for Health who will respond, because that will avoid any possible problems in relation to the quasi-judicial functions that the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health occasionally have.
  I intend to add some local interest and to refer to the Yellow Ribbon story in relation to knee and hip joint replacements that are carried out at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital. It is in my constituency, but it serves virtually the whole of Wales for replacements if the waiting time has exceeded the patients charter guideline. That waiting time was 18 months, though an attempt is being made to reduce it to 12 months now. I do not criticise the unique method used by the Welsh Office under this Government of having specialist "treatment centres", which do not exist in England, simply to treat those who have been on the waiting list for a long time. The centres treat cataracts and there is one in my constituency at the Prince of Wales orthopaedic hospital, Rhydlafar, for knee and hip joint replacements.
  I applaud the treatment centre phenomenon, but the surgeon in charge of the Rhydlafar centre has experienced considerable difficulties and has now been suspended on full pay pending disciplinary hearings. Those hearings will obviously take their course in the usual way, but I raise the matter in the House because I suspect that there is a strong connection between the point raised by my hon. Friend and the treatment centre.
  A specialist treatment centre for patients on the waiting list for knee and hip joint replacements takes bread out of the mouths of the orthopaedic consultants who, to a man—they are all men—also operate at BUPA and other private hospitals in Cardiff and Newport. I believe that there is one private centre in Newport at a Catholic foundation hospital and there is a BUPA hospital in Cardiff. Most orthopaedic surgeons tend to share their time between the two.
  If a treatment centre is set up with the specific aim of taking all the patients from anywhere in Wales who have been waiting for 18 months—I think that it is now 12

  1091
  months—since first seeing a consultant for treatment, free to the purchasing health authority, that obviously takes bread out of the mouths of the private consultants who would love to be treating them at £3,000 or £4,000 a time at a BUPA hospital.
  To make matters worse, on 1 April 1993 at the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, a third operating theatre was opened. The triple suite there now means that the work can be dealt with rapidly and, in theory, the waiting list could be removed altogether. That, in turn, takes the bread out of the mouth of the BUPA and other private hospitals with orthopaedic facilities.
  That places enormous pressure on orthopaedic consultants' income from private work. The more work that is done under the NHS and the more the waiting lists for hip and knee joint operations under the NHS shrink, the more one removes the incentive for private operations at BUPA and other hospitals. That sets up enormous tensions between the surgeons who are best at cutting the waiting lists and the surgeons who make most of their money from private work.
  A surgeon can either be one of the boys, take it slowly and not work too fast in order to leave plenty of work to be done privately, or he can be as committed to the NHS as it is possible to be and thereby upset his colleagues. Attitudes to patient care and the functions of the NHS must be borne in mind when specific treatment centres are set up as part of Government policy.
  At the Prince of Wales hospital, Rhydlafar, the top orthopaedic surgeon involved in knee and hip joint replacement, who is in charge of the contract from the Welsh Office, has been told to cut the waiting list. Patients waiting longer than the maximum time allowed by the patients charter, whether they are from north, mid or south Wales, have to be treated free, at no cost to the patient or the purchasing health authority from which the patient originates. They can be dealt with immediately at the Prince of Wales hospital. That is what should, in principle, be done.
  But that has probably led to a climate of jealousy and tension between professionals which may well, in turn, have led to the suspension of the director of the treatment centre, Ian Mackie, on 17 June pending disciplinary proceedings for a series of charges of gross misconduct, professional misconduct, and so on.
  Whether the charges have been trumped up, as many people believe, I am not in a position to say, but the tension between the various professionals in knee and hip joint replacement surgery has been building up for a long time. The treatment centre has been putting pressure on the private income of those who have been largely dependent on performing knee and hip joint work at BUPA and other private facility hospitals in south Wales. It is, therefore, fortunate that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), will be dealing with the issue, because the Welsh Office Minister might at some time in the future have to deal with quasi-judicial appeals. The Minister here tonight will not have to, so he will not be embarrassed by my referring to the issue.
  Since Mr. Ian Mackie has been suspended from duty, members of staff, patients and others have been wearing yellow ribbons to show their support for him. I was told of an incident only today when the acting unit manager visited the hospital to get members of staff to remove "Back Mackie" stickers from their cars while they are on
  1092
  hospital premises. That is getting heavy; people should be free to express their opinions about the surgeon but they are clearly not able to do so because of the health authority's sensitivity and the fact that the authority is undertaking disciplinary proceedings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West made an extremely important point about the lack of guidelines. Biomet and Zimmer are the two companies which are in dispute and are behind the present incident that led to the suspension. They are or were American owned. Nobody knows how far such companies can go in encouraging consultants to be demonstrators or lecturers at international conferences. Are they supposed to ask consultants to demonstrate their equipment, or is it a breach of disciplinary procedures? We do not know, because there are no guidelines laid down by the British Medical Association or the hospital service. In the absence of any satisfactory guidelines from the NHS, I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter tonight so that the Minister can tell us what the Government's position is in a matter on which they do not appear to have any policy.
  10.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on raising this important subject. I know of his strong interest in hip replacement operations.
  The medical development of the prosthetic replacement of joints culminated in the 1960s in the first hip replacements for patients. The development of the early hip prostheses owes much to the ingenuity of Sir John Charnley in Manchester and the pioneering work carried out by Mckee and Watson-Ferrar in Norwich. In less than 30 years, other joint prostheses have been added, but the one that meets the greatest need of people all over the world remains the hip joint replacement.
  Many problems have been recognised in the use of prostheses, such as that of operating on elderly patients. In the first 15 years or so, it was the elderly lady with the fractured neck or femur and those suffering from the degenerative condition of osteoarthritis who were the natural priorities. In the 1960s, however, doctors and patients immediately recognised that a hip replacement offered effective treatment for debilitating or depressing health problems. From the wheelchair or from confinement to the house and dependence on others for simple activities, people could become free of the pain of osteoarthritis and able to lead more independent lives.
  The numbers of hip replacements rose rapidly. In England in 1969—
  Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: If I do, I shall not be able to get through what I am trying to say, so I would rather not.
  In England in 1969, there were 10,869 operations. By 1979, the number had risen to 28,788. Recently published data show that more than 50,000 operations were carried out in 1989–90. Total hip replacements have been one of the outstanding success stories of the national health service. Through this operation, skilled surgeons are making a major contribution to improving the quality of life for many thousands of people every year.

  1093
  As the hon. Gentleman said, many prostheses have been brought into the market since the early days of Charnley, and the majority of the 800-plus orthopaedic surgeons are performing this operation every week in the national health service. The success of the operation has brought new developments in its wake. Surgeons are now extending the range of patients for whom it is considered beneficial to provide prostheses—younger, fitter, more active people who expect to return not only to domestic activities in comfort but to the energetic pursuits they enjoyed before joint disease slowed them down. We can justifiably take pride in the achievements of the national health service in providing such a large number of operations and in extending hip prostheses—
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: I have only four minutes left.
  Mr. Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  Mr. Sackville: We must also recognise that there is an implication for the design and long-term performance of the prostheses themselves, subjected to much greater wear and tear over the longer lifespan of those younger patients. Much research and development worldwide is concentrating on the problems that this presents to patients and their doctors. The sorts of areas of research aimed at reducing the effects of wear include the materials prostheses are made of, the precise design and, thus, the distribution of stresses during movement, and the value of the use of various types of cement to fix the prostheses in place and whether cement is needed at all.
  Of course, there is not consensus among clinicians about individual prostheses. Indeed, as has been said, we have insufficient knowledge in many areas. However, we know that the life expectancy of a hip prosthesis is reckoned to be between 10 and 15 years. We also know that 9·5 per cent. of all hip replacement operations in 1990–91 were revisions. Of course, this does not give us a
  1094
  true percentage revision rate. Estimates of revisions vary considerably. Many experts would agree on about 10 per cent. Revisions are an important load on the national health service resources, and we are all—patients, doctors and everyone involved in the service—concerned to reduce that burden of distress and to maximise the use of resources so that more patients may have a satisfactory outcome and more money may be available for providing treatment.
  In the United Kingdom, total hip replacements are classified as medical devices and, as yet, are not subject to specific legislation. Voluntary controls have, however, been applied for many years by the Department of Health, under the manufacturer registration scheme, which has been in operation since 1986. This involves the assessment of the manufacturer's facilities to ensure they meet the Department's requirements for quality assurance, including control of product design. The requirements for total hip replacements are included in "Quality Systems for Orthopaedic Implants", which was published in 1990. This calls for compliance with BS 5750, as well as specific materials and product standards.
  The list of approved manufacturers is supplied to the NHS and the private sector, which are strongly recommended to buy only from registered companies.
  Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Sackville: Another important control is the Department's—
  Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a point of order for the Chair?
  Mr. Flynn: It is, Sir. I appeal to you, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers. My speech tonight was my first Back-Bench speech in the Chamber for more than 12 months. The Minister is abusing his position by ignoring all the—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the time limit for bringing actions applicable to those seeking to make claims arising from the ingestion of benzodiazepine tranquillisers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A number of representations I have received on the subject have touched on the question of time limits, among other issues. Time limits are, of course, a matter for the court.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what recent representations he has received on the progress of the benzodiazepine tranquillisers claims;

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the decisions of the Legal Aid Board in relation to the availability of legal aid in pursuit of claims arising from the use of benzodiazepine tranquillisers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have received 70 some representations in the last three months, encompassing various aspects of this litigation.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he intends to meet the Legal Aid Advisory Committee on the question of(a) class actions and (b) claims arising out of the use of benzodiazepine tranquillisers.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor and I are always interested to hear the views of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee on matters which it wished to draw to our attention. The Legal Aid Advisory Committee, however, has no role in respect of the handling of individual cases or groups of cases, which is entirely a matter for the Legal Aid Board.

  Multiple Claims
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether the Lord Chancellor has referred to the Supreme Court rules committee the question of procedures for the handling of multiple claims.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has not referred to the Supreme Court rules committee the question of procedures for the handling of multiple claims. However, the Supreme Court procedure committee has considered this issue and in May 1991 published a "Guide for Use in Group Actions". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give a breakdown of the legal aid bill under the different categories of work 486
  categories for which information is kept including a separate total for divorce and matrimonial expenditure; and if he will give comparable figures for (a) 10 and (b) 15 years ago.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Net expenditure in each main category of work was as follows:

  1977–78 £ million

  1982–83 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  All Civil

  24

  68

  463

  Criminal Higher

  22

  52

  220

  Criminal Magistrates'

  20

  55

  197

  Green Form

  6

  31

  119

  ABWOR1

  n/a

  8

  22

  Duty Solicitor Schemes2

  n/a

  n/a

  72

  TOTAL EXPENDITURE

  72

  214

  1,093

  It is not possible to give separate net expenditure figures for civil non-matrimonial and civil matrimonial. It is, however, possible to give separate figures in respect of gross expenditure, which are as follows:

  1977–78 £ million

  1982–83 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  Non-matrimonial

  10

  38

  353

  Matrimonial

  24

  50

  183

  (All figures have been rounded to nearest £ million)

  1 Assistance by way of representation. The scheme was introduced in April 1980.

  2The duty solicitor magistrates courts scheme and police station scheme were introduced in June 1984 and January 1986 respectively.

TRANSPORT

  Relief Roads (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to consult the public in respect of the proposed Greater Manchester western and northern relief road, section M62 to M66.

  Mr. Key
  In September.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current position in respect of the loan by the European investment bank for the construction of the Jubilee line.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that arrangements for the European investment bank to fund the initial payment by the O and Y company towards its contribution to the cost of the Jubilee line extension are in place, ready to operate once my right hon. Friend can approve the funding agreement and give the go-ahead to construction.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 July,Official Report, columns 158–59, on the east London river crossing, what are the implications of his announcement for the line

  487
  order, the compulsory purchase orders and the exchange land certificate in relation to the proposed crossing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The extent to which the existing line order will need to be varied or revoked will depend on the new proposals which we shall bring forward in due course. We shall not take any action to implement the present compulsory purchase orders, which will cease to be valid in November 1994. The exchange land certificate will accordingly become redundant.

  Personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres, by
  road type England and Wales 1985–1992

  Rales per million vehicle kilometres

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  41992

  England

  Motorway1

  0·122

  0·127

  0·110

  0·104

  0·108

  0·109

  0·104

  0·111

  Trunk2

  0·379

  0·443

  0·323

  0·400

  0·377

  0·366

  0·321

  —

  Minor3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·859

  0·858

  0·800

  —

  Wales

  Motorway1

  0·117

  0·104

  0·096

  0·109

  0·110

  0·116

  0·103

  0·092

  Trunk2

  0·368

  0·394

  0·392

  0·360

  0·355

  0·354

  0·334

  —

  Minor3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0·537

  0·608

  0·467

  —

  1 Motorways plus A(M) roads. These are mostly trunk roads but include
  a few principal roads for which county councils are the highway authority.

  2 Trunk roads. Roads comprising the national network of through
  routes for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority, but excluding motorways which
  have been classified separately.

  3 Minor roads. B, C and unclassified roads.

  4 Traffic data for 1992 are provisional.

  9 Accident rates per 100 million vehicle kilometres: by road
  class, region1 and severity: 1989–1991 average

  Rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres

  A roads

  All A roads

  All main roads

  Built up

  Non built up

  Mortorways

  Trunk

  Principal

  Trunk

  Principal

  Northern

  Fatal

  0·5

  1·2

  1·8

  1·0

  1·2

  1·3

  1·3

  Fatal or serious

  2·1

  9·3

  17·5

  4·9

  8·4

  10·1

  9·4

  All severities

  15·1

  70·3

  92·3

  20·7

  35·0

  48·5

  45·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Fatal

  0·2

  2·3

  1·5

  1·2

  1·9

  1·5

  1·2

  Fatal or serious

  2·0

  18·3

  18·7

  8·6

  13·3

  14·4

  11·3

  All severities

  8·9

  83·5

  90·2

  24·8

  42·2

  59·0

  46·6

  East Midlands

  Fatal

  0·3

  1·8

  1·6

  1·6

  1·9

  1·7

  1·5

  Fatal or serious

  2·9

  18·0

  18·2

  8·3

  12·9

  12·8

  10·9

  All severities

  12·6

  90·2

  98·5

  28·6

  44·8

  55·0

  47·0

  Eastern

  Fatal

  0·3

  1·6

  1·2

  1·0

  1·5

  1·2

  1·0

  Fatal or serious

  2·2

  18·5

  16·4

  6·2

  10·9

  10·5

  8·3

  All severities

  11·9

  86·2

  87·7

  21·7

  39·7

  45·2

  36·2

  South East

  Fatal

  0·3

  1·4

  1·0

  0·8

  1·4

  1·1

  0·9

  Fatal or serious

  2·3

  14·6

  15·4

  5·0

  10·0

  10·3

  8·0

  All severities

  10·3

  74·8

  81·8

  19·6

  38·8

  47·7

  37·0

  London

  Fatal

  0·3

  2·0

  1·9

  0·9

  1·4

  1·7

  1·6

  Fatal or serious

  4·3

  24·6

  36·8

  7·9

  9·9

  29·6

  27·9

  All severities

  29·9

  131·5

  197·3

  34·0

  38·9

  157·2

  148·5

  488

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the rate for personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres for England and Wales, for each year from 1985 to 1992 for(a) motorways, (b) dual carriageways, (c) trunk roads and (d) minor roads.

  Mr. Key
  Personal injury accident rates for motorways and trunk roads in England and Wales are shown in the table. Accident rates for dual carriageways in England and Wales are not available. Figures for minor roads are shown for 1989 to 1991, but are not readily available for England and Wales for earlier years. Figures for trunk and minor roads are not yet available for 1992.
  489

  Rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres

  A roads

  All A roads

  All main roads

  Built up

  Non built up

  Mortorways

  Trunk

  Principal

  Trunk

  Principal

  South West

  Fatal

  0·3

  0·9

  1·0

  0·9

  1·5

  1·2

  1·0

  Fatal or serious

  1·8

  10·2

  13·0

  5·6

  10·6

  9·8

  8·2

  All severities

  7·5

  54·8

  63·0

  18·2

  36·0

  39·3

  32·8

  West Midlands

  Fatal

  0·2

  1·7

  1·5

  1·1

  1·6

  1·4

  1·0

  Fatal or serious

  1·6

  15·0

  18·1

  8·4

  10·7

  13·5

  9·4

  All severities

  8·3

  71·8

  86·2

  29·9

  38·8

  58·6

  41·3

  North West

  Fatal

  0·4

  2·1

  1·6

  1·4

  1·5

  1·5

  1·1

  Fatal or serious

  1·9

  16·7

  16·1

  7·7

  8·8

  12·8

  9·0

  All severities

  11·4

  99·6

  106·5

  31·4

  38·3

  75·8

  53·2

  England

  Fatal

  0·3

  1·8

  1·4

  1·1

  1·5

  1·4

  1·1

  Fatal or serious

  2·1

  19·0

  19·9

  6·7

  10·7

  13·4

  10·5

  All severities

  10·7

  98·9

  107·1

  24·0

  39·1

  63·2

  49·9

  Wales

  Fatal

  0·2

  1·0

  1·3

  1·3

  1·6

  1·4

  1·2

  Fatal or serious

  1·9

  13·9

  15·3

  9·2

  11·5

  11·9

  10·4

  All severities

  10·6

  70·4

  90·7

  31·2

  42·0

  53·3

  46·9

  Scotland2

  Fatal

  0·4

  1·5

  1·6

  1·7

  1·7

  1·7

  1·5

  Fatal or serious

  2·9

  20·8

  24·7

  10·3

  13·4

  15·5

  13·7

  All severities

  10·0

  72·6

  95·7

  27·6

  37·9

  50·8

  44·8

  Great Britain2

  Fatal

  0·3

  1·7

  1·4

  1·2

  1·6

  1·4

  1·1

  Fatal or serious

  2·1

  18·8

  20·1

  7·2

  11·0

  13·5

  10·8

  All severities

  10·7

  94·9

  105·6

  24·9

  39·1

  61·5

  49·4

  1 Traffic data and casualty data in this breakdown are not available for Northern Ireland.

  2 Two accidents in Scotland, originally recorded as A road accidents, have been re·allocated as motorway accidents. There were five casualties in these accidents.

  M6
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his estimates for traffic levels on each link of the M6 between junctions four and 11 for the years up until 2011, with and without the proposed Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Key
  The environmental statement for the toll road proposals published in June indicates that in 1996 and 2011 predicted flows—vehicles per day—on M6 could be about:

  Junction 10 A–11

  Junction 8–9

  Junction 6–7

  East of Junction 4

  1996

  with BNRR

  73,900

  132,500

  116,000

  81,100

  without BNRR

  106,000

  150,000

  134,200

  110,300

  2011

  with BNRR

  102,500

  146,200

  131,700

  117,300

  without BNRR

  145,500

  180,700

  167,600

  161,800

  A copy of the environmental statement will be placed in the House Library.
  490

  Passenger Charter
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when it is proposed that the provisions of the passengers charter should apply to services operated in conjunction with passenger transport authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is for each passenger transport authority to consider whether and when to introduce a passengers charter for the rail services they specify and which are provided by British Rail on contract. I understand that the West Midlands PTA has authorised its PTE to introduce such a charter on 9 August, and that Merseyside PTE is well advanced with its preparation of a charter.

  Seat Belts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has of the number of lives saved every year by the use of rear seat belts in cars.

  Mr. Key
  An estimated 140 lives were saved in 1992 by the use of rear seat belts.
  491

  Road Safety
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made by his Department in technological methods of advancing road safety with particular reference to devices to prevent vehicles driving too close to each other; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Department's research programme aims to assess the safety related aspects of systems emerging from the European vehicle industry-led research programme, Prometheus, including autonomous intelligent cruise control (AICC). This system is intended to enhance driver convenience and comfort by automatically adjusting vehicle speed and following distance.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hoax Fire Calls
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), of 19 June 1992,Official Report, columns 7017–2, if he will publish a table showing the hoax fire calls for 1991 and 1992 on a similar basis to that given for 1987 to 1990.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information for 1991 is shown in the following table; 1992 information is not yet available.

  Percentage of total lire calls attended by local authority fire hi which the brigades believed to be malicious false alarms 1991

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  17·2

  England

  17·3

  England—non·metropolitan

  14·2

  Avon

  13·9

  Bedfordshire

  11·

  Berkshire

  13·8

  Buckinghamshire

  12·9

  Cambridgeshire

  14·1

  Cheshire

  11·9

  Cleveland

  33·4

  Cornwall

  7·3

  Cumbria

  13·4

  Derbyshire

  15·6

  Devon

  14·7

  Dorset

  12·3

  Durham

  24·4

  East Sussex

  11·3

  Essex

  15·5

  Gloucestershire

  14·5

  Hampshire

  7·1

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  14·0

  Hertfordshire

  10·4

  Humberside

  20·0

  Isle of Wight

  8·4

  Kent

  15·7

  Lancashire

  17·5

  Leicestershire

  17·8

  Lincolnshire

  14·9

  Norfolk

  8·8

  North Yorkshire

  7·6

  Northamptonshire

  9·2

  Northumberland

  13·4

  Nottinghamshire

  11·3

  Oxfordshire

  12·3

  Shropshire

  14·7

  Somerset

  12·2

  Staffordshire

  15·7

  492

  Per cent.

  Suffolk

  7·3

  Surrey

  10·6

  Warwickshire

  9·0

  West Sussex

  8·2

  Wiltshire

  11·1

  England—Metropolitan

  20·1

  Greater Manchester

  22·6

  Merseyside

  16·5

  South Yorkshire

  20·2

  Tyne and Wear

  22·8

  West Midlands

  22·5

  West Yorkshire

  18·8

  Greater London

  20·2

  Wales

  17·6

  Clwyd

  13·4

  Dyfed

  14·7

  Gwent

  23·4

  Gwynedd

  7·9

  Mid Glamorgan

  19·4

  Powys

  8·9

  South Glamorgan

  19·5

  West Glamorgan

  19·5

  Northern Ireland

  13·1

  Scotland

  17·8

  Strathclyde

  20·3

  Highlands and Islands

  8·0

  Grampian

  9·6

  Tayside

  13·4

  Lothian and Borders

  18·6

  Fife

  17·5

  Central

  14·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13·3

  Drug Seizures
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the figures for drug seizures and offenders in the Birmingham metropolitan area for each month of 1993 up to the latest date available.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not yet available. Information on seizures of controlled drugs in the United Kingdom and offenders dealt with during 1992 will be included in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin to be published in the autumn, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Crime Statistics
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage change(a) in the reported incidence in each category of crime and (b) in total for the Metropolitan police area between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Private Security Firms
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the number of residents' associations and similar bodies which have hired private security firms to protect their property in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Charles Wardell
  Information of this kind is not held centrally.
  493

  Directorate of Telecommunications
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will set out his objectives in the privatising of DTELS.

  Mr. Howard
  The key objectives are:

  1. To maximise sale proceeds consistent with preserving the best prospects for effective competition in the market for telecommunications support services for the emergency services.

  2. To obtain reassurance that the purchaser should have the capacity to meet transferred liabilities and obligations.

  Criminal Justice
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet received a copy of the first annual summary of activities from the Criminal Justice Consultative Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  I received an advance copy of the first summary of activities for the Criminal Justice Consultative Council from Lord Justice Farquharson on 25 June. It outlines the many important issues considered by the council during 1992, following its inception in January of that year, and includes a list of topics which council intends to include in its forthcoming agenda. The report also provides a brief summary of the activities of the area criminal justice liaison committees in the six months since they first met.

  The summary is being published today.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 will be brought into force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Some provisions came into effect when the Bill received Royal Assent on 1 July. My right hon. and learned Friend has made a commencement order bringing all the remaining provisions of the Act into force on 26 July.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is available to the Government on persons residing or working illegally in the United Kingdom; and from what sources the information is drawn.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information about illegal entrants, overstayers and those working in breach of their immigration conditions may be available from records held by the immigration and nationality department. Those responsible for the enforcement of the immigration law also receive information from the police, for other Government Departments and agencies, and from members of the public.

  City of London (Road Closures)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the wider London impact of the road closures effected by the City of London corporal ion on security grounds.
  494
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Traffic congestion in Lower Thames street has extended beyond normal peak times. There has been no significant impact elsewhere.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many notices under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 have been issued(a) in total since 1987 and (b) in each quarter since January; how much money has accrued as a result, how many such notices have been contested by airlines or shipping companies; and with what results.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As at 31 May 1993, 51,279 notices had been issued to carriers since the Act came into force, and total receipts stood at £25·06 million. The number of notices issued in each quarter since January 1992 was as follows:

  Quarter ending

  Numbers of notices

  31 March 1992

  1,954

  30 June 1992

  1,605

  30 September 1992

  2,355

  31 December 1992

  2,197

  31 March 1993

  1,608

  A total of £7.91 million was received in payments during this period. Representations to local immigration service inspectors were made by carriers in 3,304 cases, and further representations to headquarters were made in 612 cases. A total of 1,296 charges were waived locally and 116 by headquarters during the same period.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Home Office animals inspectors have visited the university of Glasgow since the Animals (Science Procedures) Act 1986 was passed; and what action, if any, arose from such inspections.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Between 1 January 1989 and 12 July 1993, 294 visits were made to the university of Glasgow. Each visit is likely to have involved visits to several individual university departments. Prior to 1989. departmental visits were counted separately: 232 such visits were made in the period 1 January 1987 to 31 December 1988.

  It is not the practice to give information about the findings and resultant actions, if any, arising from routine visits of inspection.

  Humana Charity
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request the Charity Commission to undertake an investigation into the Humana Charity, No. 297489, in respect(a) of its donations to the International Emergency Centre and (b) of its links with the Danish TVIND-DAPP organisation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Charity Commissioners are already investigating the activities of Humana in the light of matters identified during routine monitoring. The investigation will include any links which Humana may have with other charitable or non-charitable organisations.
  495

  John Matthews
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long it took to return clothes and possessions to John Matthews after he left court on Tuesday 6 July; how long John Matthews was in custody; and if he will estimate the total cost of holding and transporting John Matthews.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At Paddington Green police station on 6 July Mr. Matthews refused to give his written authority to hand his property to his chosen nominee. The police are currently awaiting Mr. Matthews' authority to do so.

  Mr. Matthews was in custody from 27 April 1993 until his court appearance on 6 July. The estimated cost of holding and transporting him is £37,116.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many overseas visitors were initially refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom in 1987 and in each subsequent calendar year to date; and what were their nationalities.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The total numbers of non-EC passengers by nationality who were refused leave to enter, and removed from, the United Kingdom in 1987–91 are published in table 1 of the annual Home Office Command Papers "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom"—Cm. 415, 726, 1 124, 1571 and 2063 for each of the five years respectively—copies of which are held in the Library. Corresponding information for 1992 is given in table A. Information on EC nationals refused and removed in 1987–92 is given in table B. It is not possible from the information available centrally to ascertain how many of those refused leave to enter, and removed from, the United Kingdom had sought entry as visitors.

  Table A

  Non-EC nationals refused leave to enter, and removed from, the
  United Kingdom in 1992

  Geographical region and nationality1

  Number of persons

  All nationalities excluding EC

  14,722

  Western Europe (excluding EC)

  1,163

  Austria

  70

  Cyprus

  78

  Finland

  53

  Malta

  13

  Norway

  40

  Sweden

  122

  Switzerland

  67

  Turkey

  228

  Former Yugoslavia

  492

  Eastern Europe

  1,576

  Bulgaria

  28

  Czechoslovakia

  302

  Hungary

  145

  Poland

  855

  Romania

  86

  Former USSR

  160

  Americas

  2,886

  Argentina

  65

  Barbados

  34

  Brazil

  518

  496

  Geographical region and nationality1

  Number of persons

  Canada

  125

  Chile

  42

  Colombia

  397

  Cuba

  4

  Guyana

  60

  Jamaica

  409

  Mexico

  83

  Peru

  108

  Trinidad and Tobago

  61

  United States or America

  933

  Uruguay

  16

  Venezuela

  31

  Africa

  3,443

  Algeria

  233

  Egypt

  23

  Ethiopia

  36

  Ghana

  401

  Kenya

  210

  Libya

  19

  Mauritius

  157

  Morocco

  99

  Nigeria

  1,070

  Sierra Leone

  316

  Somalia

  50

  South Africa

  430

  Sudan

  12

  Tanzania

  107

  Tunisia

  31

  Uganda

  38

  Zambia

  73

  Zimbabwe

  138

  Indian sub-continent

  1,058

  Bangladesh

  390

  India

  324

  Pakistan

  344

  Middle East

  563

  Iran

  175

  Iraq

  19

  Israel

  125

  Jordan

  22

  Kuwait

  7

  Lebanon

  175

  Saudi Arabia

  18

  Syria

  22

  Remainder of Asia

  991

  China

  53

  Indonesia

  12

  Japan

  138

  Malaysia

  346

  Philippines

  114

  Singapore

  46

  Sri Lanka

  108

  Thailand

  43

  Hong Kong2

  131

  Australasia

  392

  Australia

  236

  New Zealand

  156

  Others

  2,650

  British Overseas citizens

  22

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  1,453

  Stateless

  1,175

  1 Or claimed nationality where the nationality is in doubt.

  2 British Dependent Territories citizens and British Nationals
  (Overseas) only.

  497

  Table B

  EC nationals1 refused leave to enter, and removed from, the United Kingdom, 1987–92

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  European Community

  1,453

  1,654

  367

  145

  88

  229

  Belgium

  36

  28

  2

  6

  3

  16

  Denmark

  12

  5

  7

  6

  4

  5

  France

  158

  134

  49

  34

  18

  111

  Germany2

  91

  66

  20

  11

  13

  1

  Greece

  57

  13

  4

  1

  —

  3

  Italy

  91

  56

  12

  3

  4

  23

  Luxembourg

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  124

  70

  18

  25

  9

  23

  Portugal

  472

  767

  134

  49

  32

  44

  Spain

  411

  515

  120

  10

  5

  3

  1 Passengerss who are, or claim to be. EC nationals.

  2 Excluding nationals of the German Democratic Republic prior to the unification of Germany on 3 October 1990.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action on malnutrition and infant mortality in Iraq he has taken since the meeting in the Foreign Office between the Under-Secretary responsible for the middle east and the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 22 June.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Since the meeting referred to, £1 million has been transferred through the United Nations escrow account to the World Food Programme (WFP) for purchasing part of the crop in the north of Iraq to help feed the Kurds. We have also agreed to finance a programme of water and sanitation work in schools in the south to he carried out by CARE. However, responsibility for the condition of the people in Iraq rests with Saddam Hussein. If the Iraqi Government would accept the conditions set out under United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, it could sell its oil and provide $1·6 billion worth of humanitarian aid for its people.

  Aid (Africa)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase aid to (i) Angola, (ii) Mozambique and (iii) Eritrea and Ethiopia.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have committed £0·8 million of humanitarian aid to Angola this year and plan to increase this to £2 million if the security situation permits safe access for aid organisations. Three thousand tons of bilateral food aid has also been allocated. We will consider providing further assistance depending on the situation.

  We spent over £31 million in Mozambique in 1992–93. We also expect to spend significant sums this year but with a higher proportion of rehabilitation and longer term development activities than last year when the greater need was for drought relief.

  We plan to commit £10 million to bilateral projects in Ethiopia over the next two years, and £1 million to Eritrea.

  We shall continue to provide major contributions to these countries through our share of the development programmes of the multilateral agencies. In addition the EC Development Council on 25 May, agreed a resolution
  498
  calling for the Community to implement an urgent rehabilitation programme of at least 100 mecu, drawn mainly from the European development fund, for certain African countries including Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for further humanitarian relief to Sarajevo to address the severe shortage and possible disappearance of water supplies to the city.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees continues to make every effort to secure the passage of humanitarian supplies into Sarajevo, including fuel, in order to operate the pumps which are essential for the local water supply system.

  We are playing a major part in both the road-based relief convoys into Sarajevo and the airlift. But the continuing hostilities are inhibiting the passage of humanitarian supplies and we urge all of the parties to the conflict to allow these supplies to pass without hindrance or delay.

  Colombia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the activities funded from United Kingdom expenditure in Colombia and the amounts spent.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Current technical co-operation commitments in Colombia funded by Overseas Development Administration are as follows:

  a project in support of biological control of the pests of coffee plants—£0·833 million.

  advice and training support in the post-harvest handling of fruit—£0·842 million.

  completion of a programme of training in mines safety—£0·332 million.

  support to teacher training in English language education—£0·456 million

  sponsorship of post-basic training in the United Kingdom—around £0·5 million per annum.

  Technical co-operation spending in Colombia amounted to £1·149 million in 1990–91 and £1·292 million in 1991–92.
  499

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

  Lady Chalker's overseas (ravel 1992

  When

  Number of working days out of the office

  Where

  Reason

  April

  Monday 13 to Tuesday 14

  1½

  Budapest

  1st AGM of EBRD

  May

  Sunday 3 to Tuesday 5

  2

  Brussels

  EC Formal Development Council, Joint EC Development/Environment Council, Bilaterals with EC Commissioners

  Friday 22 to Sunday 24

  3

  Lisbon

  Conference on Humanitarian aid to FSU

  June

  Monday 1

  1

  Geneva

  UN/SADCC Conference

  Saturday 6 to Saturday 13

  7

  Rio de Janeiro

  UNCED

  Sunday 14 to Monday 15

  1

  New York

  UNICEF Executive Board

  July Sunday 5 to Tuesday 7

  2

  New York

  UN ECOSOC High Level meeting

  Wednesday 8 to Thursday 9

  2

  Washington

  IBRD, IMF, IADB and State Department Bilaterals

  Wednesday 15

  ½

  Brussels

  European Parliament Development Committee

  Tuesday 28 to Wednesday 29

  1½

  Geneva

  UNHCR Conference on ex-Yugoslavia

  August

  Thursday 20 to Saturday 22

  2

  Wolfsberg. Switzerland

  ICRC High Level Meeting

  September

  Saturday 12 to Sunday 13

  2

  Kenya

  EC Troika visit to Kenya and Somalia, Heads of Mission Conference in Zambia. Bilateral and drought relief visit to Zambia and Zimbabwe

  Monday 14

  1

  Somalia

  Tuesday 15 to Thursday 17

  3

  Zambia

  Friday 18

  1

  Zimbabwe

  Saturday 19

  1

  South Africa

  British-South African Conference, Durban and bilaterals with South African politicians

  Sunday 20

  1

  Mozambique

  Bilaterals and drought relief

  Tuesday 29

  1

  Luexembourg

  EC/ACP Joint Assembly

  Wednesday 30 to Friday 2 (October)

  1½

  Former Yugoslavia

  Bilaterals and to see humanitarian relief work

  October

  Monday 5

  1

  Luxembourg

  FAC: Somalia briefing

  500
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The information requested is contained in the tables.
  501

  When

  Number of working days out of the office

  Where

  Reason

  Tuesday 13 to Wednesday 14

  1½

  Ukraine

  Bilaterals and visit KHF Projects

  Thursday 15 to Friday 16

  2

  Russia

  Tuesday 27 to Friday 30

  4

  Tokyo

  Humanitarian aid to FSU conference (28 October), Aid talks with Japanese (27 October)

  November

  Wednesday 4

  1

  The Hague/Brussels

  Bilaterals. Address to ACP Ambassadors

  Saturday 14 to Sunday 15

  2

  Madrid

  Bilaterals

  Tuesday 17 to Wednesday 18

  1½

  Brussels

  EC Development Council

  Thursday 19 to Friday 20

  1½

  New York

  Address to UNGA. Bilaterals

  Monday 30

  1

  Paris

  OECD: DAC High Level Meeting

  December

  Tuesday 1

  1

  Brussels

  EP Development Committee

  Lady Chalker'x overseas travel 1993 (in date)

  When

  Number of working days out of the office

  Where

  Reason

  January

  Sunday 17 to Thursday 21

  4

  Nigerial, Ghana

  Bilaterals, project visits

  Wednesday 27 to Thursday 28

  2

  Bosnia

  Assessment of humanitarian relief operation

  February

  Friday 5 to Monday 8

  2

  Somalia, Kenya

  Bilaterals, project visits and (in Somalia) relief operation

  Tuesday 23 to Thursday 25

  3

  South Africa

  Bilaterals with Mandela, Buthelezi, de Klerk

  March

  Monday 1 to Saturday 6

  5

  Nepal

  Accompany HRH Princess of Wales on working visit

  Friday 26 to Saturday 27

  1

  Germany

  Königswinter Conference

  April

  Wednesday 21

  1

  Turkey

  President Ozal's funeral

  May

  Monday 3 to Wednesday 5

  3

  Hungary

  Accompany Her Majesty The Queen on state visit

  Tuesday 18

  1

  Brussels

  ACP/EC Council of Ministers

  Tuesday 25

  1

  Brussels

  EC Development Council

  Monday 31 to Thursday 3

  2

  New York/Washington

  Bilaterals with UN/State/USAID/World Bank

  502 503

  When

  Number of working days out of the office

  Where

  Reason

  June

  No Visits

  July

  No Travel

PRIME MINISTER

  Trade Facilitation Groups
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what trade facilitation groups have been set up in Peru, Colombia and Mexico in the wake of his visit; and what advantages have accrued to Britain as a result of agreements and understandings arrived at during his visit.

  The Prime Minister
  On my visit to Colombia last year I agreed with President Gaviria that we should establish a trade facilitation group and that the United Kingdom and Colombia should begin negotiations for an investment promotion and protection agreement and a double taxation agreement. The trade facilitation group has now reported back on obstacles to bilateral trade and how to overcome them and has identified many opportunities for British businesses. We hope to sign an IPPA and a DTA soon. I did not visit Peru or Mexico.

  Departmental Bills
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the steps taken by his Government to ensure that Government Departments pay outstanding bills within 30 days of their receipt; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  "Government Accounting" requires all Departments to pay outstanding bills in accordance with the terms of the contract or generally understood terms of business, or within 30 days of the receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later, if no terms are specified.

  Departments are responsible for monitoring their payment performance. The results for 1991–92 were published in written parliamentary answers on 13 July 1992. The results for 1992–93 will be published shortly and Departments will, in future, also be required to publish details of their payment performance in departmental reports.

  Child Migrant Scheme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library all Government records relating to the child migrant scheme;

  (2) what discussions he has had with representatives of the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian Governments concerning the welfare of United Kingdom child migrants; what is the Government's policy towards the compensation of those who have suffered as a result of this scheme; if he will take steps to increase Government grant assistance to the Child Migrant Trust; and if he will make a statement.
  504
  The Prime Minister
  It would not be right to place personal record files in the Library. Other records are considered for deposit in the Public Record Office in the usual way.

  I have not raised the subject of child migrants with the Heads of Government in Australia, New Zealand or Canada, nor have they raised the subject with me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is contacting the Australian authorities.

  I know there have been allegations of physical and sexual abuse of a number of child migrants some years ago in Australia, but any such allegations will be a matter for the Australian authorities. I am not aware of any allegations involving the British authorities or claims against them for compensation.

  The Child Migrant Trust applied for Government funds and has received a section 64 grant of £25,000 from the Department of Health for the current year.

  Any future application will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

PRIME MINISTER

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), of 5 July,Official Report, column 11, what charges are made to organisations or persons holding non-official events at 10 Downing street in respect of overheads or indirect costs associated with such functions.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 July 1993]: The practice under this and previous Administrations is that the organisers are responsible for all catering and staff costs, as well as other miscellaneous direct costs. No charges are levied for overheads or indirect costs.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) on 5 July,Official Report, column 11, whether all political parties represented in the House can apply to use 10 Downing Street for fund raising and other social purposes.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 July 1993] : As under previous Administrations, the use of 10 Downing street for non-official or party functions is a matter for the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 11, which Ministers have hosted non-official or party receptions or functions in 10 Downing street since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 19931]: I have hosted all such events since November 1990.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, columns 11–12, if

  505
  he will give details of the occasions upon which No. 10 Downing street was used for functions for which tickets were sold for the benefit of political parties since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: As I said in the reply to which the hon. Member refers, that is not a matter for the Government.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, column 12, on attendance by Mr. Asil Nadir at functions at No. 10 Downing street, which of the functions attended were Government functions; and who issued the invitation in each such case.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: The only Government function was the dinner for the President of Turkey. For all the functions, invitations would have been issued in the name of the Prime Minister.

  Foreign Heads of State (Visits)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official visits made by heads of foreign states to Northern Ireland in each of the last three years, the engagements carried out by them during each such visit, and indicating which engagements were private, public and official.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: There have been no official visits made to Northern Ireland by heads of foreign states in the last three years.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will publish the consultation paper on the protection of conservation areas.

  Mr. Brooke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I issued this on 8 July together with a draft planning policy guidance note on historic buildings and conservation areas. Further details were given in my reply of 9 July to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris),Official Report, column 287.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions grants have been made by the Arts Council under its(a) bursaries to writers scheme and (b) writers in residence scheme during the last five years to applicants who were neither resident in England nor had any previous connection with England.

  Mr. Brooke
  Under the Arts Council of Great Britain's "Bursaries to writers scheme", bursaries are offered only to writers currently resident in England. Separate schemes are run by both the Welsh and Scottish arts councils. Grants to five writers from abroad have been made by the Arts Council of Great Britain under its "writers in residence scheme" attached to particular areas of the country. Grants under other residency schemes have, to date, been made only to British writers.
  506

  North West Council for Sport and Recreation
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement explaining the categories and criteria by which the North West Council for Sport and Recreation assesses the needs of rural communities in terms of minimum levels of sports facility provisions.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: This issue has been examined in a specific study commissioned by the North West Council for Sport and Recreation, published in June 1991, entitled "Sport for Rural Communities". The study offers guidelines for sports facility provision based upon the size of rural communities.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will give a breakdown by category or rural community of the grants made by the North West Council for Sport and Recreation in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The North West Council for Sport and Recreation does not make grants, but advises the Sports Council's North West regional office and others on the allocation of their grant aid. Grants made by the Sports Council's north-west region in rural areas in 1992–93 were as follows:

  Capital grants applicant

  Project

  Grant £

  John Schofield tennis centre

  Construction of two indoor court tennis centres at Clitheroe

  50,000

  Nantwich & Border Counties sailing club

  Extension to clubhouse to provide changing facilities

  10,000

  Cheshire NW schoolboys scramble club

  Purchase of land and the provision of toilet/wash-house facilities at Peacock Hay

  7,500

  Chester mountaineering club

  Renovation and upgrading of a mountain hut

  10,000

  Revenue Grants

  Community council of Lancashire

  Rural areas sports development officer to assist in implementing the Rural Areas Topic Study

  30,000

  Cheshire community council

  Appointment of sports development officer for rural areas in Cheshire to assist in implementing the Rural Areas Topic Study

  30,000

  Ribbic Valley borough council

  Appointment of a sports development officer to promote all aspects of sport in the borough

  10,382

  Mesopotamian Archaeological Objects
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 463, what information he has on the total holdings of Mesopotamian archaeological objects in British public museums.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: Information on the total holdings of Mesopotamian archaeological objects in British public museums is not held centrally. If the hon. Member requires such information, the director of the British Museum would he happy to advise him on how best to proceed to collect it.
  507

EDUCATION

  Portuguese
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what representations he has received from the director of Canning house on the study of Portuguese in British schools; and what was his response;

  (2) whether he will arrange for at least one examination board to offer GCSE in Portuguese.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received several representations about the decision of the University of London Examinations and Assessment Council to discontinue its GCSE examinations in Portuguese after 1994, including one from the director general of Canning house. Following discussions with the Department, the council has recently decided to continue offering the syllabus beyond that date.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to stop the practice of including special schools in performance league tables.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans. Special schools, like all schools, deserve credit for the level of performance they achieve and should not therefore be excluded from the comparative tables. They will be listed in a separate section of the tables.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he intends to include special schools in the proposed national truancy league tables.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Yes. Regular school attendance is important for all pupils. Special school pupils will benefit from the provision being made for them only if they attend regularly.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what arrangements he has made for the introduction of a preliminary scheme of school-centred initial teacher training this year.

  Mr. Forth
  In March this year my right hon. Friend invited proposals from consortia of schools to design, organise and make provision for courses of initial teacher training for up to 250 graduates. The courses will lead to qualified teacher status for successful students. On 31 May he announced those consortia which have been approved to offer courses starting in September. A further announcement on courses starting in January 1994 will be made shortly. Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the higher and further education vote—class X, vote 2. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £500,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will provide in respect of each school which has held a ballot on grant-maintained status(a) the percentages of parents voting and (b) the percentages voting for and against.
  508
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The details requested, correct as of 11 July, are available in the Library.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what experience of working with young children will be necessary to enter the proposed one-year primary teacher training courses;

  (2) what will be the minimum qualifications needed to take part in the one-year teacher training courses for primary schools; and what age groups will be recruited;

  (3) what percentage of the future intake of teacher training will consist of persons taking the one-year primary school courses.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend issued a draft circular on 9 June which included proposals for specialist one-year courses of initial training for early years teaching, for mature people with the academic qualifications for higher education together with significant experience of working with children. Views on the organisation and content of such courses were invited. The consultation period will continue until the end of July and criteria for all courses of initial training for primary teachers will be finalised in the autumn. It will then be for those wishing to offer one-year courses to make detailed proposals and satisfy the Secretary of State that they meet the necessary requirements.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 7 July,Official Report, c. 137, if he will obtain for his departmental library copies of the research on the impact of class size in educational attainment in Tennessee in the United States of America, details of which have been given to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have arranged for a copy of the report on the STAR project to be made available in the DFE information bureau and library. I have noted the findings of this research but conclude that it adds little to an understanding of the effects of class size on educational attainment in schools in England.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many student loans have been granted in each year since they were introduced; what is the total cash figure in each case; and what is the figure repayable in each case.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total change in public expenditure that would result from public expenditure per person in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being at the same level as in England for(a) 1979, (b) 1992–93 and (c) the 1994–95 and 1995–96 published plans.
  509
  Mr. Portillo
  Information on general Government expenditure per head in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is published annually in the "Statistical Supplement to the Autumn Statement". The latest information, for 1987–88 to 1991–92, was published in Cm. 2219. Equivalent information is not available for 1979 or for years beyond 1991–92.

  Table E1 in Cm. 2219 shows identifiable general Government expenditure per person in 1991–92 of £2,963 in England. Equivalent figures for the rest of the United Kingdom were £3,506 in Scotland; £3,268 in Wales; and £4,191 in Northern Ireland. On this basis, total identifiable general Government expenditure was some £5½ billion higher in the rest of the United Kingdom taken together than in England.

  Those figures go wider than expenditure for which the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are directly responsible. They include, for example, expenditure on social security. They exclude, however, almost a fifth of total general Government expenditure, which cannot be identified from official records as having been incurred on behalf of the population of a particular territorial area.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments have introduced monthly budgets with analysis of variations of performance against targets.

  Entitlements for 1993–94 cash limits resulting from the
  carryover of capital underspends

  Cash limits on Votes

  Annual

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  I

  Ministry of Defence

  Operational and support costs, logistics services and systems procurement and research

  95,375

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation

  8,201

  II

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  External broadcasting and monitoring

  2,597

  III

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Agricultural, food and fishing services

  1,873

  IV

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Support for business, consumer and investor protection, energy programmes and
  administration

  3,304

  IV

  6

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  Administration

  2,000

  V

  1

  Department of Employment

  Programmes and central services

  714

  VI

  1

  Department of Transport

  National roads, England

  21,107

  VI

  2

  Department of Transport

  Administration and transport services

  2,000

  VI

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2,000

  VI

  5

  Department of Transport

  Local roads and transport

  1,919

  VII

  5

  Department of the Environment

  Central environmental services, etc., England

  669

  VII

  7

  Department of the Environment

  Administration

  1,386

  VII

  10

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance survey

  63

  VIII

  2

  Home Office

  Prisons, England and Wales

  1,728

  VIII

  3

  Home Office

  Administration, immigration, probation and police support services, England and Wales

  1,847

  IX

  11

  Public Record Office

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  510
  Mr. Portillo
  This information is not collected centrally. The 1986 multi-departmental review of budgeting recommended that"budget should include output and performance indicators, and there should be regular evaluation of what has been achieved compared with the objectives which have been set". Most Departments made good progress in meeting this principle. The subsequent next steps initiative, which requires the responsible Minister to set performance targets for each of his agencies normally covering financial performance, efficiency—including unit costs—and quality of service, has led to significant further improvements: typically, the 90 agencies analyse variations of performance against targets on a monthly basis.

  End-year Flexibility Schemes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1993–94 resulting from the carry-forward of the capital and running costs underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes.

  Mr. Portillo
  A list of entitlements totalling £358 million for capital expenditure and £48 million for running costs is shown in the table.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up.

  The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the Reserve and will, therefore, not add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  511

  Cash limits on Votes

  Annual

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting Department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  IX

  12

  The Crown Office, Scotland, Procurator Fiscal Service and Lord Advocate's Department

  Administration

  59

  X

  4

  Department for Education

  Administration

  1,122

  XI

  1

  Department of National Heritage

  Museums and galleries

  372

  XI

  2

  Department of National Heritage

  Arts

  420

  XI

  7

  Department of National Heritage

  Administration

  64

  XII

  1

  Department of Health1

  Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, England

  44,957

  XII

  3

  Department of Health

  Administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England

  2,244

  XII

  6

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  751

  XIII

  4

  Department of Social Security

  Administration and miscellaneous services

  10,806

  XIV

  2

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  Agricultural services, agricultural grants and fisheries, Scotland

  2,249

  XIV

  3

  Industry Department for Scotland

  Training programmes, roads and transport services and industrial support, Scotland

  1,777

  XIV

  12

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  Law, order and miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland

  1,761

  XIV

  14

  Scottish Home and Health Department1

  Hospital, community health, family health (part) and other health services, Scotland1

  8,401

  XIV

  17

  Scottish Education Department

  Education, arts and libraries, Scotland

  2,606

  XIV

  22

  Scottish Record Office

  Scottish Record Office

  52

  XIV

  23

  General Register Office for Scotland

  General Register Office for Scotland

  212

  XV

  2

  Welsh Office

  Agricultural support and services, fishing regional and industrial development, Wales

  4,660

  XV

  5

  Welsh Office

  Tourism, roads and transport, housing other environmental services (including civil defence), education, arts and libraries and health and, personal social services, Wales

  3,065

  XV

  8

  Welsh Office1

  Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales

  7,232

  XV

  9

  Welsh Office

  Administration

  50

  XVII

  1

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  2,000

  XVII

  6

  Inland Revenue

  Administration

  7,711

  XVII

  10

  Department for National Savings

  Department for National Savings

  186

  XVII

  14

  Central Statistical Office

  Central Statistical Office

  533

  XVIII

  1

  Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service and Science

  Office of Public Service and Science

  868

  TOTAL VOTED

  252,941

  1 Special health scheme.

  512 513

  Cash limits on non-voted expenditure

  1992–93

  £ thousand

  DOE/HC

  Department of the Environment

  Grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England

  741

  DOE/UA

  Department of the Environment

  External financing requirements of Urban Development Corporations in England, grants to local authorities and other bodies under the urban programme, the derelict land reclamation and city grant programmes (including associated LA credit approvals), grants for urban and housing projects under the City Challenge initiative and other expenditure for inner cities initiatives

  30,461

  DOE/LACAP

  Department of the Environment

  Basic credit approvals to local authorities in England for housing, transport (except passenger transport authorities), education, health, other services and Home Office (fire services in shires only). Supplementary credit approvals and certain other grants to local authorities in England for housing. Supplementary credit approvals to certain local authorities for all capital purposes to offset some categories of commutation losses

  61

  DOE/ES DOE/ERDF

  Department of the Environment

  Supplementary credit approvals for other environmental services in England, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and the Isles of Scilly (water and sewerage) and ERDF grants

  7,855

  DOH/LACAP

  Department of Health

  Supplementary credit approvals for health in England

  1,184

  MAFF/LACAP

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Supplementary credit approvals for flood defence, coast protection and harbour improvements in England

  870

  HO/LACAP

  Home Office

  Supplementary credit approvals for probation, police and civil defence in England and Wales. Basic credit approvals for fire (joint FCDAs only) in England and Wales

  192

  LCD/LACAP

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Supplementary credit approvals for magistrates' courts in England and Wales

  695

  SO/LA 1

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for roads and transport, water and sewerage, police, education, social work services, general services, urban programme, river purification and civil defence

  32,604

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for housing. Capital expenditure by New Towns in Scotland for housing and other environmental services

  13,019

  WO/LACAP

  Welsh Office

  Basic credit approvals for local authorities in Wales. Supplementary credit approvals for all services (except urban programme and urban development grant) and housing grants

  4,467

  WO/UA

  Welsh Office

  Supplementary credit approvals and grants (both capital and current) to local authorities in Wales in respect of the urban programme and Urban Development Grant. Urban Investment Grant and expenditure by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  3,729

  NID1

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services

  8,235

  NID4

  Northern Ireland

  Expenditure in Northern Ireland on national agricultural capital grant schemes, certain assistance for production, marketing and processing and the fishing industry

  1,022

  Total non-voted

  105,135

  Total capital end-year flexibility

  358,076

  Entitlements for 1993–94 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  Amount £ thousands

  Overseas Development Administration

  235

  Intervention Board—Executive Agency

  144

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  1,362

  Trade and Industry

  1,528

  Office of Telecommunications

  50

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  50

  514

  Department

  Amount £ thousands

  Department of Transport

  1,104

  Department of the Environment

  982

  Property Holdings

  238

  Home Office

  7,235

  Charity Commission

  50

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  2,032

  Crown Prosecution Service

  950

  Department of Education

  478

  Department of Health

  1,333

  515

  Department

  Amount £ thousands

  Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys

  238

  Department of Social Security

  12,628

  Scottish Office

  1,433

  Scottish Courts Administration

  191

  Welsh Office

  365

  Northern Ireland Office

  3,582

  Northern Ireland Departments

  HM Treasury

  397

  HM Customs & Excise

  3,484

  Inland Revenue

  7,504

  Department for National Savings

  579

  Central Statistical Office

  162

  Government Actuary's Department

  50

  TOTAL

  48,384

  Income Tax
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1992–93 and 1993–94 levels of income from imposition of limits for all allowances and reliefs within the tax system to(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000 and (c) £20,000 and the additional revenue yield from restricting all

  Limit for total allowances and reliefs

  Full year yield at 1992–93 income levels from restricting allowances and reliefs within limits

  Full year yield at 1993–94 income levels from restricting allowances and reliefs within limits

  £

  25 per cent, restriction £ million

  20 per cent, restriction £ million

  25 per cent, restriction £ million

  20 per cent, restriction £ million

  10,000

  2,100

  8,600

  2,200

  8,400

  15,000

  2,100

  8,700

  2,200

  8,500

  20,000

  2,200

  8,800

  2,300

  8,600

  The number of people with total allowance and reliefs in excess of these limits:

  Limit £

  1992–93 thousands

  1993–94 thousands

  10,000

  610

  420

  15,000

  85

  85

  20,000

  45

  45

  The estimates of revenue yield do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the changes.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield in 1993–94 of restricting all personal allowances and reliefs to the basic rate.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 July 1993] : The estimated full year yield at 1993–94 income levels from restricting all personal allowances and reliefs to the basic

  Number of employees to whom options were granted during year (Thousands)

  Number of employees who exercised options during year (Thousands)

  Initial value of shares over which options granted during year (£ million

  Market value of shares over which options exercised during year (£ million)

  1990–91

  65

  n.a.

  1,450

  700

  1991–92

  80

  20

  1,350

  1,100

  516
  allowances including personal allowances and reliefs within these limits, to relief at (i) 20p and (ii) 25p, giving in each case the numbers of people affected.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 July 1993] : Estimates of the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1992–93 and 1993–94 levels of income from imposition of the specified limits for allowances and reliefs within the tax system for these years are as follows. These are based on information compiled from a number of statistical surveys and are subject to more than the usual margin of uncertainty, and incorporate the conventional assumption of no changes in mortgage interest rates in 1993–94.

  Limit for total allowance and reliefs

  1992–93 yield

  1993–94 yield

  £

  £ million

  £ million

  10,000

  690

  650

  15,000

  380

  380

  20,000

  270

  280

  After restriction of the allowances and reliefs within these limits to 25 and 20 per cent., the estimated further yield would be as follows:

  rate of tax is £2·4 billion. This incorporates the conventional assumption of no changes in mortgage interest rates during 1993–94.

  The estimate of revenue yield does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the changes.

  Discretionary Share Option Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people have received discretionary share option schemes for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will provide an estimate for 1993–94;

  (2) how many employees (a) were granted and (b) exercised discretionary share options; and what was their value in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answers 12 and 13 July 1993]: Information on the number of employees exercising options under discretionary share option schemes approved by the Inland Revenue was not collected prior to 1991–92. Data are not yet available for 1992–93 and 1993–94. Estimates for earlier years are as follows:
  517

  Company Taxation
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1993–94(a) corporation tax repaid and (b) reliefs for capital allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: It is estimated that total corporation tax repayments in 1993–94 will be £3·7 billion and reliefs for capital allowances will cost £14 billion.

  Trading Losses
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield in 1992–93 and 1993–94 of restricting the carry-back of trading losses to(a) two years and (b) one year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: Restricting the carry back of trading losses to two years in 1992–93 might have increased net corporation tax receipts by £300 million. A restriction of the carry back to one year might have increased receipts by a further £100 million. Comparable estimates for 1993–94 are not available.

SCOTLAND

  Surgical Treatment
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will develop and publish measurements of the outcome, successful or otherwise, of surgical and medical treatments other than mortalities within the national health service.

  Mr. Stewart
  Yes. A working group to develop clinical outcome measures involving managers and clinicians was established in late spring 1992. Its first discussion document was published in December 1992 proposing a range of outcome measures. On 7 July 1993 a second discussion document—"Clinical Outcome Measures"—was issued presenting pilot outcome measures at the level of health board of treatment. These include measures other than mortality such as:

  1. Proportion of patients discharged home within two months of emergency admission from home for fractured neck of femur;

  2. One year re-operation rate after transurethral prostatectomy.

  3. 28-day emergency readmission rate after discharge from medical specialities.

  These measures are now included in service contracts to ensure arrangements are made for collection of good quality data which are consistent and comparable.

  The use of outcome measures and the validity of any comparison depends on standard data and on careful interpretation. The working group is currently addressing these issues in consultation with managers and clinicians.

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  HCH Revenue

  100 Consultants initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Resource management initiative medical and clinical audit, IT

  1

  7

  13

  13

  Enhancement of personnel, finance and other key staff functions and training

  Not available

  NHS Trusts—mainly consultations and start up costs

  —

  —

  7

  35

  518

  Anaesthetists
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by each health board the current number of vacancies for anaesthetists; and what action is being taken to fill these posts.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available centrally. As at 30 September 1992, however, there were three established posts for consultant anaesthetists which had been vacant for six months or more. Two or these, in Argyll and Clyde and Western Isles health boards, were filled earlier this year. A further post in Argyll and Clyde health board has been advertised but no appointment has been made.

  Health Care International
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are being taken to ensure that Health Care International does not compete with the national health service in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The HCI hospital at Clydebank will not compete with the NHS for patients. The hospital is to focus on the treatment of overseas patients; NHS hospitals will continue to treat United Kingdom patients unless a health board determines that it would be in the best clinical interests for a patient to receive treatment outwith an NHS facility.

  Furthermore, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the then Secretary of State for Scotland, took steps, at the time of the HCI application to build the hospital, to safeguard the position of the NHS. The application was subject to a rigorous consultative process under the health service Acts. Acceptance by HCI of the consequential stringent conditions designed to protect the NHS was a prerequisite of the authorisation given by my right hon. and learned Friend to the building and operation of the hospital. These conditions relate to the recruitment of medical and nursing staff, the pay and conditions of service of these staff and the supply of blood and blood products. The relevant NHS interests and medical institutions are currently discussing these various aspects with HCI to ensure that the hospital fully meets the specified conditions and that NHS interests are effectively safeguarded.

  NHS Reform
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer by the Secretary of State for Health to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) of 23 November 1992,Official Report, columns 497–98, whether he will provide a similar table setting out his Department's figures, for the costs of NHS reform, for each year from 1989–90 to 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of the cost of NHS reforms for each of the years from 1989–90 to 1992–93 are shown in the table.
  519

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Family Health Service Authorities Administration

  Not applicable

  Others—mainly quality initiatives pilot projects and capital charges

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL REVENUE

  1

  7

  20

  48

  HCH Capital

  Resource management initiative medical and clinical audit, IT

  —

  2

  5

  3

  Quality Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  TOTAL CAPITAL

  —

  2

  5

  3

  FHS Practice Funds Management Allowance

  —

  —

  —

  2

  TOTAL FHS

  —

  —

  —

  2

  SO Administration

  SO Staff and consultancy costs related to the Review

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prescription Pricing (Pharmacy Practice)

  3

  4

  5

  6

  Post Royal Assent Publicity

  Not applicable

  3

  4

  5

  6

  TOTAL NHS REVIEW

  4

  13

  30

  59

  Not Proven Verdicts
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be able to publish the conclusions of the review of the not proven verdict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: We expect to publish a consultation paper on the functions of the jury in criminal trials and the not proven verdict towards the end of the year.

WALES

  County Council Elections
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage turnout in each county in each county council election in Wales since 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on county council election turnout is published in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys "Electoral Statistics" series and in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Local Government Elections, England and Wales 1989" copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many midwives were employed(a) full time and (b) part time in each region in each year since 1988;

  (2) how many midwifery staff are employed in each region (a) full time and (b) part time (i) on an agency basis and (ii) on bank contracts;

  (3) how many practising midwives there are in each grade in each region, including those in senior nurse/senior midwive grades, senior nurse grades and education and clinical grades, excluding agency midwives; how many are employed (a) full time and (b) part time; and how many student midwives there are in each region.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Detailed breakdowns of nursing and midwifery staff employed by health authorities and
  520
  NHS trusts into occupational groups such as those requested are not considered reliable. However, information on the numbers—whole time and part time—of nursing and midwifery staff for the years 1988 to 1992 is listed as follows. In addition, a table showing the figures split by grade—excluding student and pupil nurses and staff nursery staff—is shown for 1992. Figures include those agency and bank staff who are paid on standard pay scales but exclude those who are not paid on standard pay scales. Separate information on these is not available. The information is shown for Wales as a whole as there are no regional health authorities in Wales.

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff in Post as at 30 September

  Number

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  1988

  19,945

  12,936

  1989

  20,026

  13,210

  1990

  20,069

  13,632

  1991

  19,843

  13,913

  19921

  19,447

  14,993

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff in Post as at 30 September 19921 2

  Number

  Pay scale/Grade

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Clinical grades:

  NPO1 Grade A (under 18)

  5

  1

  NPO6 Grade A (18 and over)

  3,255

  4,508

  NP16 Grade B

  794

  1,126

  NP21 Grade C

  459

  800

  NP26 Grade D (2nd level enrolled nurses)

  1,686

  2,106

  NP31 Grade D (1st level registered nurses)

  1,540

  1,180

  NP36 Grade E

  3,674

  3,347

  NP41 Grade F

  1,360

  1,041

  NP46 Grade G

  3,173

  767

  NP51 Grade H

  646

  39

  NP56 Grade I

  346

  1

  Education staff:

  NRO1 Grade 1

  33

  2

  NR11 Grade 2

  226

  18

  NR21 Grade 3

  10

  —

  NR31 Grade 4

  43

  —

  NR41 Grade 5

  6

  —

  NR51 Grade 6

  1

  —

  521

  Number

  Pay scale/Grade

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  NR61 Grade 7

  2

  —

  Senior nurses3:

  NT21 Senior nurse 4

  1

  —

  NT26 Senior nurse 3

  2

  —

  NT36 Senior nurse 1

  4

  —

  Senior Nurses/Midwives3:

  NXO1 District/unit

  79

  —

  NXO2 District/unit

  3

  —

  NX11 Unit 1st level

  34

  —

  NX12 Unit 1st level

  1

  —

  NX21 District 1st level

  3

  —

  NX31 Region

  1

  —

  Previous senior nurses grades3:

  ND Director of Nursing Services

  5

  —

  1 The 1992 figures exclude about 64 whole-time equivalent nursing and midwifery staff employed by Pembrokeshire NHS trust on local pay scales to whom the standard pay grades do not apply. In addition, there are about 1,000 student nurses who have been reclassified as students following the introduction of Project 2000 nursing education reforms.

  2 Excluding student and pupil nurses and staff nursery staff.

  3 Since 1 January 1991 staff on "Previous senior nurse grades" shown and senior nurses (NT) have been eligible to transfer to new senior nurse pay scales.

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

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of sickness absence among employees expressed as a percentage of total working time for(a) full-time manual employees, (b) full-time non-manual employees, (c) part-time employees and (d) all employees in Wales for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not available.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent by the National Health Service in Wales on external management consultation in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many tutors are employed in a full-time capacity in Wales to teach the Welsh language to adults; and what plans his Department has to increase the number of full-time tutors of Welsh for adults.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.
  522
  The Further Education Funding Council for Wales, in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, has established a joint working group to review the provision of Welsh language education for adults. The joint review group will prepare recommendations to the funding councils on (a) the supporting activity needed to ensure the maintenance and development of Welsh language education for adults; (b) the way in which this activity might be funded; and (c) how the funding of Welsh language education for adults might be channelled in future.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many courses are currently offered in the Welsh language in(a) Gwynedd technical college, (b) Llandrillo technical college and (c) the North East Wales institute of higher education; and if he will name the courses and the number of students currently on each one.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authority-owned houses were untenanted in each local authority area at the latest available date; and what information he has on the length of time they had been vacant.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Vacant local authority dwellings1

  Local authority

  Total

  Of which vacant for more than six months

  Aberconwy

  6

  0

  Alyn and Deeside

  38

  8

  Arfon

  35

  0

  Blaenau Gwent

  109

  0

  Brecknock

  4

  4

  Cardiff

  269

  4

  Carmarthen

  12

  7

  Ceredigion

  24

  5

  Colwyn

  16

  0

  Cynon Valley

  30

  0

  Delyn

  27

  0

  Dinefwr

  10

  0

  Dwyfor

  12

  0

  Glyndwr

  28

  4

  Islwyn

  73

  10

  Llanelli

  101

  47

  Lliw Valley

  60

  21

  Meirionnydd

  14

  2

  Merthyr Tydfil

  31

  1

  Monmouth

  51

  19

  Montgomeryshire

  31

  3

  Neath

  61

  14

  Newport

  96

  14

  Ogwr

  91

  7

  Port Talbot

  66

  22

  Preseli

  47

  1

  Radnorshire

  3

  0

  Rhondda

  33

  0

  Rhuddlan

  5

  0

  Rhymney Valley

  18

  0

  South Pembrokeshire

  11

  2

  Swansea

  141

  0

  Taff-Ely

  64

  1

  Torfaen

  105

  19

  Vale of Glamorgan

  44

  5

  Wrexham Maelor

  179

  18

  Ynys Mon

  83

  21

  523
  1 At 1 April 1993. Includes those dwellings which were to be let after undergoing repair and those awaiting sale or demolition.

  Source: Welsh Office local authority returns.

  Neurology
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the medical schools within Wales indicating which schools teach neurology as part of their courses.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The university of Wales college of medicine is the only medical school in Wales. Neurology is part of the range of subjects in the college's undergraduate medical curriculum.

  District Nurses, for England by RHA, 1982–91 at 30 September (whole-time equivalents)

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  England

  10,120

  10,030

  9,770

  9,930

  9,990

  9,500

  9,390

  10,160

  10,380

  9,900

  Northern

  na

  na

  na

  na

  820

  820

  810

  850

  850

  820

  Yorkshire

  na

  na

  na

  na

  720

  740

  710

  790

  780

  660

  Trent

  na

  na

  na

  na

  1,000

  1,000

  1,030

  1,040

  1,000

  980

  East Anglian

  na

  na

  na

  na

  390

  360

  370

  370

  350

  350

  North West Thames

  na

  na

  na

  na

  650

  590

  570

  720

  710

  660

  North East Thames

  na

  na

  na

  na

  650

  630

  610

  710

  730

  710

  South East Thames

  na

  na

  na

  na

  720

  480

  410

  350

  800

  680

  South West Thames

  na

  na

  na

  na

  660

  620

  610

  660

  620

  630

  Wessex

  na

  na

  na

  na

  650

  620

  620

  640

  630

  620

  Oxford

  na

  na

  na

  na

  510

  510

  500

  570

  570

  580

  South Western

  na

  na

  na

  na

  620

  620

  630

  750

  710

  640

  West Midlands

  na

  na

  na

  na

  1,060

  1,040

  1,020

  1,100

  1,080

  1,070

  Mersey

  na

  na

  na

  na

  520

  530

  510

  570

  540

  520

  North Western

  na

  na

  na

  na

  1,000

  920

  980

  1,030

  1,010

  990

  SHAs

  na

  na

  na

  na

  20

  10

  10

  10

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. "na" means figure is not available,— = zero.

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Totals may not add due to rounding.

  4. Figures exclude senior nurses 1–5. Includes senior nurses 6–8 in district nursing, district nurses, district nurse practical work teachers, holders of dual post (DN/midwife) and hank district nurses. From 1989 included clinical grade G to I in district nursing.

  5. The figures exclude the total number of nurses working in GP practice in England and Wales which increased from 1,515 at 1 October 1982 to 8,780 whole-time equivalent at 1 October 1991.

  N. B. For details on appropriate qualifications for practice nurses read para 52.23 (Page 211) national health services, general medical services statement of fees and allowances and payable to general medical practitioners in England and Wales from 1 April 1990.

  Nottingham Clinic
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received from hon. Members relating to the Nottingham clinic.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since the district auditor wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 23 March 1993 under section 20(3) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, there have been nine such representations, including four parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for Nottingham, East himself.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of emergency admissions to(a) the Doncaster Royal and Montagu trust, (b) Doncaster healthcare trust and (c) the Trent region 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
  524

HEALTH

  District Nurses
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district nurses were employed in each regional health authority in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table.

  the general and acute specialities given in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 29 June at column 418 did not begin until April 1991.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of emergency admissions of elderly patients to(a) the Doncaster and Montagu trust, (b) Doncaster healthcare trust and (c) the Trent region for the years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1992–93 purchasers in the Trent region purchased 129,000 non-elective admissions of persons aged 65 and over. The comparable figure for 1991–92 was 131,000; the information for 1990–91 is not available. In 1992–93 the Doncaster royal infirmary and Montagu trust provided 6,400 non-elective admissions for those aged 65 and over. The corresponding figure for the Doncaster healthcare trust was 1,600. Similar information for 1990–91 and 1991–92 is not available.

  Primary Health Care Teams
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will bring forward proposals for the provision of primary health care teams focused around general practitioners' practices in which the co-ordinating role is assumed by a named person and to provide that the
  525
  co-ordinator receives training in local information and co-ordination skills and is committed to ensuring that all residents have access to the health services they need; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We welcome the report of the task force chaired by the chief nursing officer—"New World New Opportunities"—which highlights the issues and ways forward for primary health care teams. Within those teams there has been a large increase in numbers of practice staff in recent years—an increase of 74 per cent. between 1989 and 1992—and their organisation should suit local health needs. The task force's report is being widely circulated within the health service and we hope that it serves as a stimulus to action for purchasers and providers of services in the light of their assessment of local circumstances.

  Smoking
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the advice her Department has provided to insurance companies on the health effects of smoking, as proposed in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper; and what response she has received from those companies.

  Mr. Sackville
  Officials of the Department of Health have met with representatives of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss smoking-related issues and to ensure that the ABI is aware of the full range of scientific and medical evidence of the dangers of smoking. There have been no meetings with individual companies.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the interdepartmental task force announced in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper has made in developing and implementing the proposed comprehensive strategy to reduce smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption; whether this strategy will be published; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The interdepartmental task force on smoking has been established to develop and implement the strategy to reduce smoking. An implementation programme to take forward the strategy will be published in due course.

  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures, other than an increase in the price in real terms of cigarettes, she will implement in order to achieve the Government's target of a 40 per cent. reduction in consumption of cigarettes by the year 2000 as set out in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper; and if she will quantify, in terms of a percentage reduction in consumption, the contribution that each may be expected to make to achieving the target.

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

  It is difficult to quantify the comparative effect of the different influences on smoking habits with any certainty.
  526

  Crime Prevention Audit
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action she proposes to take in the light of the crime prevention audit received by her Department in 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 26 May at columns 579–80.

  Mental Illness
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the availability of advocates to patients wishing to make complaints about mental health services.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have advised health authorities and service providers of the need to support the work of independent advocacy services in the mental illness key area handbook. The independent national health service complaints review announced last month will be considering the procedures for the making and handling of complaints by NHS patients and their families in the United Kingdom, and the costs and benefits of alternatives to current procedures.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mentally ill patients were treated(a) in the community and (b) as in-patients, for each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number of patients treated in the community is not available centrally.

  The table gives the number of admissions to national health service hospitals in England. For 1985–86 the figures are from the mental health inquiry and for 1985–88 to 1989–90 from the hospital episode statistics system.

  The figures include people admitted more than once in a year.

  Mental illness

  All admissions to NHS hospitals (England)

  Number

  1985

  199,995

  1986

  197,251

  1987–88

  203,700

  1988–89

  188,900

  1989–90

  194,500

  Note: Figures up to 1986 are admissions to mental illness hospitals and units during the calendar year and include transfers between hospitals. From 1987–88, figures are estimates of admissions to all NHS hospitals during the financial year of patients under the mental illness specialties. These exclude transfer between hospitals.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to amend the code of practice under the Mental Health Act 1983 with regard to the discharge of patients into the community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have revised chapter 27 of the code of practice on aftercare arrangements to draw attention to the care programme approach set out in departmental circulars. In the case of patients who have been detained, the application of the care programme approach should meet health and local authorities obligations under section
  527
  117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide aftercare. The revised code was laid before Parliament on 19 May and we intend to publish it in the autumn.

  Child Surveillance
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners submitted child surveillance claim forms in the last year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested. Ninety-three per cent. of general practitioners in England were registered to provide child health surveillance as at October 1992.

  Health Complaints
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints were referred in each year by each local authority to independent persons under the provisions of(a) the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and (b) the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Foster Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time spent in fostered care or social service care prior to adoption in the age groups(a) all ages, (b) under one, (c) over one and under five, (d) over five and under 10, (e) over 10 and under 15 and (f) 16 and over in the year before the Children Act 1989 came into force.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 17 June at column 688.

  Fluoridation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which water companies have stopped fluoridation since privatisation;

  (2) how many new water fluoridation schemes have been introduced since the Water Fluoridation Act 1985.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for fluoride supplements have been issued since January; and what are the figures for the comparable period in 1992.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is shown in the table.

  Fluoride supplement prescriptions England

  Period

  Number of prescription items Thousands

  January 1992 to March 1992

  2·1

  January 1993 to March 1993

  34·8

  Note: Since I January 1993 general dental practitioners have been able to prescribe fluoride supplements for the long-term care of their patients under the continuing care arrangements introduced by the new dental contract in October 1990.
  528

  Unemployed People
  Mr. leuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what encouragement has been given by her Department to general practitioners to address the mental, dietary and lifestyle pressures upon people who are out of work; and if she will make available pump-priming moneys to assist general practitioners to develop programmes to assist unemployed people.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have not introduced any initiatives specific to unemployed people. However, some 90 per cent. of general practitioners are now taking part in health promotion programmes for the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke, as part of new arrangements under the GP contract introduced on 1 July this year. Practices will identify the groups within their local population who they consider may be at higher risk, and will offer them help in adopting a more healthy lifestyle.

  Opportunity 2000
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the effects of Opportunity 2000 within the national health service to date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The target completion date for achieving the goals set out in Opportunity 2000 in the national health service is 1994.

  Progress so far shows the regions and national health service trusts to be actively pursuing policies to promote women's participation in the national health service. Many of the points for action listed in the implementation guide are in operation; others are being actively considered. As a result there has been an increase in the profile and contribution of women, in all areas covered by the goals, in the service.

  A copy of the implementation guide will be placed in the Library.

  Children in Need
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been defined as being in need under the Children Act 1989 in each year since the Act was passed; and how many have had services provided for them.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. Information is collected on the total number of children receiving certain specific services; children in need will be included in these totals, but are not identified separately.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations she has received regarding the inspection of residential and nursing homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  We regularly receive correspondence about the registration and inspection of residential care and nursing homes. A large number of helpful comments were received earlier this year in response to our consultation document "Inspecting Social Services", a copy of which is available in the Library.
  529

  Uranium Particulates
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been commissioned or undertaken by her Department into the nephrotoxicity of inhalation of uranium particulates.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Hepatitis A Vaccine
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current difficulties are being experienced in the production and or distribution of the hepatitis A vaccine; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has been assured by the manufacturers that there are no current difficulties production or distribution of this vaccine, known "Havrix"

  Paediatric Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of consultant paediatricians and paediatric units in each of the last five years.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The available information is shown in the table. The number of paediatric units is not available centrally.

  Consultant paediatricians—England at 30 September each year

  Year

  Puediatric specialties Number of consultants

  1987

  676

  1988

  695

  1989

  800

  1990

  821

  1991

  856

  Child Guidance Clinics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child guidance clinics there were in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Adults at Risk
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to extend legal definitions of adults at risk to include vulnerable elderly people.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities already have a duty to assess the needs of elderly people who appear to them to require community care services.

  Maternity Claim Forms
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners submitted a maternity claim form in the last year.
  530
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available in the form requested. Some 96 per cent. of general practitioners in England were on their family health services authority's obstetric list as at 1 October 1992.

  Small Pharmacies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria must be satisfied in order for a dispensing chemist to qualify for the essential small pharmacies scheme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A pharmacy must dispense between 6,000 and 17,200 prescriptions per year and be more than 2 km from the next nearest pharmacy.

  General Practices
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the general practices she has visited in the last year which are not fund-holding.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have met many non-fundholding as well as fund-holding general practitioners on my various visits to national health service regions.

  Mr. Jeremiah Kearney
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has yet received a report from the social services inspectorate on the death of Jeremiah Kearney.

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today received the social services inspectorate's report on the death, on 24 April, of Jeremiah Kearney. I am arranging for a copy to be sent to the director of social services for Haringey.

  The report shows that Mr. Kearney had a severe alcohol problem, and was at severe health risk. He was a tenant of the London and Quadrant housing association, and during the three months prior to his death was in contact with the Irish community care centre in Stroud Green, which has delegated authority from Haringey social services department to undertake community care assessments. I am satisfied with the report and that Mr. Kearney was well informed of the options for residential and day care available to him, but had chosen not to pursue them. There is nothing in the report which can be seen as a criticism of the services provided by Haringey social services department or of the actions of its staff, or of the Government's community care policies.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service sight tests have been undertaken since 1987–88 in each district health authority area in the northern region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We do not collect data on national health service sight tests carried out at district health authority level. The number of NHS sight tests paid for by each family health services authority (FHSA) in the northern region is shown in the table.
  531

  NHS sight tests: Northern Region FHSAs

  Thousands

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–901

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–932

  Cleveland

  137·8

  143·8

  69·7

  58·0

  66·1

  72·0

  Cumbria

  107·5

  109·4

  41·0

  31·6

  37·2

  41·6

  Durham

  124·2

  128·6

  57·1

  48·4

  55·1

  59·4

  Northumberland

  66·6

  71·3

  26·7

  27·5

  28·7

  34·2.

  Gateshead

  45·6

  53·2

  28·3

  21·0

  25·7

  28·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  89·3

  96·2

  46·4

  33·5

  37·2

  39·0

  North Tyneside

  39·3

  40·0

  19·1

  15·6

  18·0

  21·2

  South Tyneside

  27·9

  30·6

  15·7

  13·8

  15·4

  17·3

  Sunderland

  59·8

  67·4

  32·7

  26·2

  31·2

  33·2

  Total3

  698·0

  740·4

  336·8

  275·6

  314·7

  345·9

  1From 1 April 1989, NHS sight tests were restricted to certain groups
  in the population. The sight tests paid for in 1989–90 include some conducted prior to 1
  April 1989 when sight tests were universally available. The remainder paid for in 1989–90
  do not represent a full year under the new system, because of the delay in payments. The figure
  for 1989–90 is not, therefore, directly comparable with that for 1990–91.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3Totals may not sum, due to the effects of rounding.

  Child Migrant Scheme
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year after 1963 for which appropriate records were kept the number of children and young persons leaving the United Kingdom under the child migrant scheme, indicating to which countries they were sent and setting out the agencies responsible for their care and control to their migration.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dementia
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Government's community care programme in relation to the care of people with dementia.

  Mr. Bowis
  Our community care arrangements offer local authorities new opportunities to tailor services to the needs of users, including those with dementia.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on provision of care for dementia sufferers in west Cumbria.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government's policy for England, including west Cumbria, is to enable elderly mentally ill people to live in their own homes or in a homely setting, with appropriate support for them and their carers for as long as desirable and practicable.
  532
  District health authorities are responsible for securing a comprehensive range of psychiatric services to meet the needs of their residents, including quality services for elderly mentally ill people requiring long-term care.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines she has issued to ensure adequate quality of care in residential homes for people with dementia.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department's social services inspectorate publications "Guidance on Standards for Residential Homes for Elderly People" and "Homes are for Living in", which are both available in the Library, give standards of care for all elderly people, including those with dementia.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom presently suffer from dementia; and how many of them have Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Bowis
  The proportion of people suffering from dementia in England is shown in the table. It is estimated that around two thirds of these suffer from Alzheimer's disease.

  Mental Disorder

  Prevalence per cent.

  Dementia

  aged over 65

  5

  aged over 80

  20

  533
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what ratio of staff to patients her Department recommends in respect of residential homes and day centres for people suffering with Alzheimer's disease.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has not issued guidance on staffing ratios. The levels of staffing needed in any particular establishment will depend on the particular needs of the individuals who are being cared for.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to whom each of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by her Department is responsible; whether the public bodies or their members in each case are subject to(a) surcharge, (b) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (c) scrutiny by the Audit Commission or National Audit Office, (d) the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charters; and whether the chairpersons and members of the boards of each of these bodies are required to declare an interest.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 6 July 1993]; All executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) sponsored by the Department of Health are responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. No Department of Health executive public bodies are subject to surcharge. The Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work, the Medical Practices Committee and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority are subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner. Information on audit arrangements is set out in "Public Bodies 1992", and NDPBs are not subject to the statutory provisions for open government which apply to local authorities. All Department of Health executive NDPBs except the Medical Practices Committee include performance indicators in their management statements. All public bodies are being encouraged to follow the principles of the citizens charter. Members of non-departmental public bodies are expected to declare any potential conflict of interest and this is made clear in letters of appointment. Copies of "Public Bodies 1992" are available in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Consultation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation exercises his Department is currently conducting; and what is the timetable in each case.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of the Environment is currently undertaking 50 consultation exercises, the details of which have been placed in the Library.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what negotiations he has had with private organisations in respect of running the government car service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been no negotiations with private organisations about running the Government car 534
  service. This option was recently investigated by Coopers and Lybrand and it concluded that it would be more expensive than the current GCS service.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he published his Department's interim guidance for local authorities on energy efficiency in council housing; and to whom the document has been distributed.

  Mr. Baldry
  The guidance was published on 29 June 1993. Copies have been sent to all local housing authorities in England, and to other interested organisations.

  Planning Consent
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to end the exemption from planning consents for newly privatised utilities and local authorities.

  Mr. Curry
  We have no plans to withdraw the permitted development rights granted to statutory undertakers or to local authorities by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988. The need for newly privatised utilities to have permitted development rights is considered on a case-by-case basis in the context of the relevant privatisation legislation.

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has in regard to the proposals to be put to the Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva on new targets to reduce acid rain in Europe.

  Mr. Yeo
  The proposal for the second sulphur protocol under the 1979 convention on long-range transboundary air pollution is that the gap between current sulphur depositions and substantial protection should be closed by 60 per cent. Different levels of reductions will apply to different nations according to the relative impact of their emissions.

  The next meeting in August of the official-level working group will consider further the target date and the ranges of figures calculated for each party. The Government are at present considering its position on the reduction figures indicated for the United Kingdom.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of schemes originally funded by the urban programme has been continued by local authority mainstream funding when time expired; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally. It is for local authorities to decide which schemes to support from their own resources.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions have recently taken place(a) at the Environment Council and (b) informally

  535
  between EC Environment Ministers over the plan by France to block the further import of waste for disposal from Germany; and what are the implications for (i) EC policy and (ii) United Kingdom policy of the French Government's position on waste exports between EC member states.

  Mr. Yeo
  The impact of exports of surplus recyclable materials on member states was discussed at the Environment Council on 29 June. We share French concerns about the impact of such surpluses on our domestic recycling infrastructure, but I am not convinced that banning imports is the right way to solve the problem. However, the Government are urgently considering what action they can take to ensure that recycling capacity in the United Kingdom is sustained. EC policy on shipments of waste between member states is set out in the waste shipments regulation (259/93/EEC), which will apply from 6 May 1994.

  Water
  Mr. Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is issued to water companies as to the exact maximum level of concentration of cyptosporidium oocyst permitted in the public water supply.

  Mr. Yeo
  As explained in my answer pursuant to the hon. Member's question of 6 July Official Report, column 79, the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 require that for water supplies to be wholesome they must not contain any organism at a concentration which is detrimental to public health. With those requirements in mind, water companies have been advised to maintain a close liaison with local authorities, and with health authorities which will provide advice taking into account local circumstances.

  Housing Association Rents
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has undertaken any independent analysis on the impact of grant rate reductions on the future affordability of housing association rents.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have sought detailed advice from the Housing Corporation on the possible impact of grant rate reductions on rents and on associations' ability to raise private finance. We have also received copies of work undertaken by the National Federation of Housing Associations on this issue and received many representations from housing associations, lenders and other interested bodies.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the average housing association rents on new assured lettings in 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: The average housing association rents on new assured lettings in the years in question were as follows:
  536

  Average rent £/week (to nearest 50p)

  £

  11989–90

  25·50

  1990–91

  30·00

  1991–92

  35·50

  21992–93

  41·00

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provisional.

  Source: National Federation of Housing Associations CORE data base.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of leaseholders who will be able to purchase their freehold after the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill receives Royal Assent.

  Sir George Young
  We believe that there are three quarters of a million long leaseholders who will potentially benefit from part 1 of the Bill. We do not know enough about the numbers and composition of blocks of flats and their tenants to estimate how many individual buildings will be eligible. Whether qualifying tenants in such buildings choose to participate in collective purchase of the freehold is of course a matter for them. Any qualifying leaseholders who meet the residence criteria will be able to purchase a renewed lease, whether or not they also participate in purchasing the freehold.

  Housing (Private Sector Funding)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government have taken to generate private sector investment in social housing building programmes since 1988.

  Mr. Baldry
  By introducing a new financial regime for housing associations in the Housing Act 1988, the Government have enabled associations to raise private finance to augment the contribution made to new schemes from public funds. Housing associations have to date drawn down more than £2·5 billion of private finance in support of the Housing Corporation's approved development programme.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's estimate of the proportion of private sector loan funding which will be required to maintain housing association building programmes in each of the years 1993–94 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Baldry
  We estimate that the total private sector funding attracted by housing association schemes sponsored by the Housing Corporation in 1993–94 will be £645 million. This represents 33 per cent. of the anticipated total cost of mixed-funded housing for sale and rent to be provided through the Housing Corporation.

  The Government have announced their objective of increasing the proportion of private sector funding in new housing association schemes by reducing grant rates to 55 per cent in 1995–96. Final decisions on grant rates will only be taken when Ministers have considered all the relevant evidence, including the availability of private finance to maintain the development programme.
  537

  Housing Association Grant
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what analysis his Department has undertaken of the likely impact of the Government's proposal to reduce housing association grant to 55 per cent. by 1995 on new housing association rents in the west midlands;

  (2) what estimate has been made of the percentage of new housing association tenants in the west midlands who would be totally reliant on housing benefit if housing association grant rates are reduced to 55 per cent. by 1995;

  (3) what proposals the Government have to maintain the flow of private sector funding into social housing schemes in the west midlands in connection with the proposed reduction of housing association grant rates by 1995.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have announced their objective of reducing the average housing association grant rate in England from the current year's level of 67 per cent. to 60 per cent. in 1994–95 and 55 per cent. in 1995–96.

  Final decisions will be taken when Ministers have considered all the relevant evidence, including the likely impact on rents, on housing benefit and the availability of private finance. No decisions about grant rates for 1995–96 will be taken until much closer to the time.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider using information on the level of unemployment and the level of long-term unemployment as part of the standard spending assessments for 1994–95.

  Mr. Baldry
  The review of standard spending assessments for 1994–95 will include the consideration of a range of indicators in SSAs including where appropriate alternative measures of unemployment.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to ensure that the review of standard spending assessments is fundamental and considers all alterations including reducing disparities between authorities within the same category.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are undertaking a review of standard spending assessments to incorporate information from the 1991 census into the underlying SSA formulae. We are also taking this opportunity to consider more widely the range of social factors used within SSAs and the weight placed upon them. We also wish to reconsider the area cost adjustment, measures of density and sparsity arid the inclusion of day visitors.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangement he has agreed for the review of standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have invited each local authority in England to make representations to us on the review of standard spending assessments and to provide evidence to support any changes. My officials are meeting regularly with representatives of the local authority associations to discuss technical aspects of the review.
  538
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what timetable he has drawn up for the review of standard spending assessments, including when the consultation period will be completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our review of standard spending assessments will be completed in time for any changes to be incorporated in SSAs for 1994–95. We shall consult in the usual way on our proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, including SSAs, in the late autumn.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation he has had to date at member and officer level with local authority associations about the review of standard spending assessments; and what further consultation he expects to have in the future.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend will meet representatives of the local authority associations at the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance later this month and again in October. The results of the SSA review will be discussed at the October meeting.

  My officials have regular meetings with officers from the local authority associations in the SSA subgroup, which is the main forum for discussion of SSA data and methodology issues. The SSA subgroup has met six times so far this year and there will be at least three more meetings before the subgroup reports to the settlement working group in September.

  We shall consult in the usual way on our proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95, including SSAs, in the late autumn.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to change from using the 1981 to the 1991 census data in calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is our policy to use the most up-to-date information available within SSAs. Population estimates based on the 1991 census were incorporated into SSAs for 1993–94 and it is intended to make use of the remaining information now available from the 1991 census for 1994–95 SSAs.

  Local Authorities' Expenditure
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest estimate of the extra capital expenditure which will be undertaken by local authorities as a result of the temporary relaxation of the restrictions on the use of capital receipts in comparison with the original estimates given at the time of the autumn statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No new estimate of local authorities' extra capital expenditure arising from the temporary relaxation in the capital receipts rules has been made since that published in the autumn statement.

  Financial Management Review
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the financial management review of the Audit Commission to be published.

  Mr. Curry
  I have placed a copy of the report of the financial management of the Audit Commission in the Library of the House.
  539

  Asylum (Housing)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue guidance to local authorities about implementing the housing provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, and on the consequences of the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of R.v. Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte London borough of Tower Hamlets.

  Sir George Young
  I am today sending to all housing authorities and other interested bodies a consultation paper about proposed changes to the homelessness code of guidance to local authorities. The paper contains a draft supplementary code explaining the new duties of local authorities in relation to asylum seekers who apply for accommodation under the homelessness legislation. In the light of the Court of Appeal's clarification of the law in the Tower Hamlets case, the paper also contains a draft revision to the homelessness code of guidance about the response that authorities should make to applications under the homelessness legislation from persons who have entered the country illegally.

  I believe that these proposed changes to the homelessness code of guidance will assist authorities in managing their housing stock, by reducing pressure from applicants whose right to remain in the country has yet to be resolved, or who should not be in the country at all. I intend to issue revised guidance on these matters in the light of the responses to the consultation paper, which are requested by 13 September. I am placing a copy of the paper in the Library.

  Temporary Development
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans to alter the permitted development rights for temporary uses granted by part 4 of schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department issued a consultation paper in August last year inviting views on the scope of the permitted development rights for the temporary uses of land. I have given very careful consideration to the many hundreds of responses which my Department received both for and against introducing new or tighter controls.

  I propose to remove the existing permitted development rights for the temporary display of advertisements in order to end the current duplication of controls over such development. I have concluded that there is insufficient justification to remove existing permitted development rights for other temporary uses. We shall continue to keep these arrangements under review.

  A paper setting out the Government's full response to the consultation exercise has been placed in the Library.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses have been declared unfit as a result of water disconnection in Nottingham during the last 12 months and in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 8 July 1993]: Data on the reasons for houses being declared unfit have been collected since 1990, in which time no houses have been declared unfit in Nottingham on grounds of inadequate water supply.
  540
  Interpretation of fitness standards is a matter for local authorities, and ultimately for the courts, but in my view disconnection of a water supply for non-payment of charges does not mean that the property is statutorily unfit.

  Rainforests and Cocoa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the Brazilian delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union about the Atlantic rainforest and tariffs on cocoa.

  Mr. Yeo
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: My Department had no direct representations from the Brazilian delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Following a telephone call from the hon. Member, officials from the Overseas Development Administration attempted to set up a meeting to discuss the Atlantic rainforest, but this did not prove possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Comfrey
  Mr. Hagin
  To ask the Minister of agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information she has concerning the number of people in the United Kingdom(a) who currently use and (b) who have suffered adverse health reactions as a result of using comfrey in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not collected, but the independent expert committees that advise Ministers on food safety issues concluded that there was sufficient evidence linking the intake of comfrey to toxic effects in humans to warrant action to reduce intakes of comfrey. A particular concern was the very high levels of pyrrolizidine alkaloids generally present when comfrey is presented in concentrated form.

  Imported Animals
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which animals have been designated under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 and in subsequent regulations made under that Act.

  Mr. Soames
  The Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 (as amended) places controls in Great Britain on the importation and keeping of musk rats. Orders made under this Act extend these controls to grey squirrels, non-indigenous rabbits, coypu and mink.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which animals designated under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 may now be imported from other member states of the EC.

  Mr. Soames
  All of the animals to which the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 applies may be imported from member states, subject to the controls imposed by the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 (as amended). However, these animals cannot be kept in Great Britain without an appropriate licence from Agriculture Departments. Licences may only be issued to permit the keeping of these animals for exhibition, scientific research or other exceptional purposes, except in the case of mink which may also be kept for fur.
  541

  Veterinary Products
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many EC countries implemented EC directive 81/851 on the harmonising of veterinary products by(a) automatically renewing the licences of current medicines and (b) by a fresh process of relicensing; what considerations led him to opt for the latter approach for the United Kingdom; what are the costs of relicensing a medicine through the Veterinary Medicines Directorate; and how many existing products have not been submitted for relicensing.

  Mr. Soames
  All member states have been required to apply the full provisions of Directive 81/851 to long standing pharmaceutical veterinary medicinal products, and this approach has been adopted within the United Kingdom. While details of implementation in other countries are a matter for those countries and the EC Commission, the directive does not allow for automatic renewal of licences in respect of old products and we are not aware of any member state which has done this.

  No fee is charged for the review of an old product in the United Kingdom. The costs to the company are variable, and will depend on what data are necessary to demonstrate that a product meets current standards of safety, quality and efficacy. As at 25 June 1993, 1,727 such products (63 per cent. of those called for review) have had their licences withdrawn or allowed to expire in the United Kingdom. This is comparable to my understanding of the position in France (68 per cent.) and Spain (56 per cent.).

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 571, he will list (a) those foodstuffs in which folic acid occurs in significant quantities, and (b) those breads and breakfast cereals which are fortified with folic acid, noting separately those products which have been fortified since his Department commended the report of the Chief Medical Officer on folic acid and the prevention of neural tube defects indicating the contribution to intake of folic acid made by a standard portion of each.

  Mr. Soames
  A list of those foodstuffs in which folic acid occurs in significant quantities and the contribution to intake of folic acid made by a standard portion of each is set out in the table. Details are not held centrally of breads and breakfast cereals fortified with folic acid, nor of those fortified products which have been introduced since my Department commended to the food industry the recommendations of the expert advisory group in its report to the Chief Medical Officer on "Folic Acid and the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects". I am aware, however, that many breakfast cereals and a number of breads are fortified.

  Amount of folk acid in portions of selected foods

  Portion size

  Folic acid per portion

  grams

  ounces

  micrograms

  Broccoli

  90

  3·0

  60

  Brussels sprouts

  90

  3·0

  100

  Cauliflower

  90

  3·0

  45

  Green beans, frozen

  90

  3·0

  50

  Okra

  90

  3·0

  40

  542

  Portion size

  Folic acid per portion

  grams

  ounces

  micrograms

  Peas, frozen

  90

  3·0

  40

  Potatoes, old

  180

  6·5

  45

  Potatoes, new

  180

  6·5

  35

  Spinach (or other dark green leafy vegetable)

  90

  3·0

  80

  Black-eye beans

  60

  2·0

  130

  Chickpeas

  60

  2·0

  30

  Baked beans, canned reheated

  135

  5·0

  30

  Two slices of wholemeal bread

  70

  2·5

  30

  Two slices of white bread

  60

  2·0

  20

  Two slices of bread (fortified)

  60

  2·0

  70

  Two Chapatis

  120

  4·0

  20

  One bowl of breakfast cereal (fortified)

  40

  1·5

  100

  Milk, pint

  585

  20·0

  35

  One banana

  100

  3·5

  15

  One orange, or a glass of orange juice

  200

  7·0

  60

  Half grapefruit

  80

  3·0

  20

  One cup Bovril or Marmite (from one level teaspoon)

  —

  9·0

  95

  Bovril or Marmite on one slice of bread

  —

  4·0

  40

  Note:All Vegetables are boiled

  Rare Farming Breeds
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department has taken in respect of protecting the United Kingdom's rare farming breeds by artificial insemination; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The regulations governing artificial insemination in cattle and pigs are intended to ensure that semen is collected only from healthy animals and apply equally to all breeds, including rare farming breeds. In EC negotiations on rules for intra-Community trade in bovine semen the Department has taken account of the interests of the rearers of rare and minority breeds. For the foreseeable future, national rules will continue to apply to the use of stored semen which does not meet Community standards.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement about the number of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy which have occurred in Great Britain since the information contained in the progress report which was recently placed in the Library.

  Mr. Soames
  Up until 13 July 1993, 100,012 cases of BSE have been confirmed in Great Britain, 7,051 of these since the preparation of the progress report on 30 April 1993. The cumulative total of cases has no particular scientific significance and has no relevance to the epidemiology of the disease. What is more important is that the number of suspect cases now being reported is less than at the same time last year, and that the number of cases occurring in younger cattle has dropped sharply. These changes indicate that the ruminant feed ban is
  543
  bringing the epidemic under control in the way predicted by our scientific experts and that with time the number of cases being confirmed will decline to a negligible level.

  Sea Fish Conservation Act
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is her latest estimate of the cost of implementing the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1992, and how much has been spent so far.

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

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies notified in each of the last six months in the north-west were(a) part-time, (b) full-time, (c) permanent and (d) temporary.

  Breakdown of vacancies notified to Jobcentres in the North West Region

  Quarter

  Number of part-lime vacancies notified1

  Number of full-time vacancies notified

  Total number of vacancies notified

  5 October 1992 to 8 January 1993

  29,493

  40,292

  69,785

  11 January 1993 to 2 April 1993

  27,980

  39,486

  67,466

  5 April 1993 to 2 July 1993

  32,522

  51,583

  84,105

  1 Part-time—Under 30 hours work per week.

  Quarter

  Number of permanent vacancies notified

  Number of temporary vacancies notified1

  Total number of vacancies notified

  5 October 1992 to 8 January 1993

  51,670

  18,115

  69,785

  11 January 1993 to 2 April 1993

  53,792

  13,674

  67,466

  5 April 1993 to 2 July 1993

  64,203

  19,902

  84,105

  1 Temporary—Work lasting six months or less.

  Media Employees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are employed in the media sector in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest available estimates from the Labour Force Survey of employment in the media industries in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Numbers

  Printing and publishing of newspapers

  89,000

  Printing and publishing of periodicals

  29,000

  Radio and TV services, theatres etc.

  97,000

  Outcome of HSE inspections under the ELCI for 1988 to 1992.

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  A: Prosecutions

  Number of prosecutions for non-compliance

  6

  7

  17

  8

  5

  544
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mr. J. Turner to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 14 July 1993:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, it is the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the Agency's Chief Executive to answer Parliamentary Questions about relevant operational matters. In his absence, I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State about vacancies notified in the North West.
  The total number of vacancies notified to Jobcentres is collated monthly. Detailed full time, part time and temporary vacancy information is available on a quarterly basis.
  The table attached shows the information you requested for the past three quarters.
  I this is helpful.
  As decided by the Administration Committee of the House of Commons, Chief Executive replies to written Parliamentary Questions will now be published in the Official Report. I will also place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.

  These figures are based on the estimates for Great Britain in winter (December to February) 1992–93 and those for Northern Ireland in spring (March to May) 1992.

  Employer Liability Insurance
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many cases of employers not providing proper employer liability insurance have been recorded in each of the last five years; and in how many cases directors have been prosecuted and convicted of an offence.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (ELCI) is enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Available information is set out in the following table:
  545

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  B: Other cases of non-compliance

  Number of cases in which non-compliance was identified but which did not lead to a prosecution

  35

  24

  9

  16

  12

  Information on whether any directors were prosecuted and convicted under ELCI (and the outcome of all prosecutions) is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the results of recent research into the distribution of invalidity beneficiaries by severity of their disablement on the 10 point OPCS scale or other measures of severity of disablement.

  Mr. Scott
  The programme of research is not yet complete.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish renewed guidance to local authorities about their duties in respect of making housing benefit payments.

  Mr. Burt
  The Department issues guidance to local authorities on all aspects of housing benefit, in the form of a guidance manual and circulars. The manual has recently been fully updated and was issued to all authorities earlier this month. It covers the requirement for local authorities to make interim payments of rent allowance where, through no fault of the applicant, a claim cannot be settled within 14 days.

  The Department is committed to issuing strengthened guidance to local authorities shortly to remind them of this duty.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce the arrangements for claiming industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly lay before Parliament regulations to prescribe chronic bronchitis and emphysema as industrial diseases in relation to underground coal miners. The regulations will come into effect from 13 September 1993. The terms of the prescription, which are as recommended by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council were announced by my right hon. Friend in his reply to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 29 March at column 77. He has also announced that there will be a two-stage take-on in order to ensure that claims can be handled as quickly as possible and that unacceptable delays do not arise.

  Claims from seriously ill and older miners will be dealt with first; their claims will be accepted from 13 September. Claims from all others will be accepted from 1 March
  546
  1994. No-one will lose benefit as a result of the staged take-on. Payments will be backdated to 13 September 1993 if people claim at the appropriate time and satisfy the usual conditions for the award of benefit.

  For the purpose of claiming benefit in stage 1, the regulations will define "seriously ill" miners and ex-miners as those who are in receipt of an award of the higher rate care component of disability living allowance or higher rate attendance allowance. Miners and ex-miners who are awarded one of these benefits between 13 September 1993 and 28 February 1994 will also be able to submit a claim in stage 1. Claims will also be taken in stage 1 from other miners and ex-miners who are age 70 or over on 13 September 1993. In stage 2, claims will be taken from all other miners from 1 March 1994.

  The details about claiming will be widely publicised by the Benefits Agency before 13 September.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many loans have been granted under the social fund for rent in advance by each local social fund office in each year since the establishment of the fund.

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

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Dafvdd Wigley, dated 13 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 loans have been granted under the Social Fund for rent in advance by each local Social Fund office in each year since the establishment of the Social Fund.
  The Social Fund was introduced in April 1988 and you seek information in respect of each local office. The information is only in this form for the period 1990–91. From April 1991 when the Benefits Agency was created the information is only available by District Office because local offices were grouped into Districts. This information has been placed in the Library under the heading "BENEFITS AGENCY Loans for Rent in Advance from the Social fund".
  Information was not kept by local office for the financial years 1988–89 and 1989–90. I can, however, tell you that the numbers of loans awarded nationally for rent in advance for those periods were 9,098 and 12,833 respectively.
  I hope you find this reply helpful. A copy of this letter will appear in the Official Report and a copy will also be placed in the Library.

  Severe Hardship Allowance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for social Security how many applications were(a) made and (b) approved for severe hardship allowance in the last 12 months for which figures are available in (a) England, (b) the north-west, (c) Lancashire and (d) Burnley; and if he will make a statement.
  547
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Mr. M. Bichard to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 13 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 were (a) made and (b) approved for severe hardship allowance in the last 12 months for which figures are available in (a) England, (b) the North West, (c) Lancashire and (d) Burnely; and if he will make a statement.
  The complete range of information you requested is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. This is because statistics relate to Benefits Agency Districts and are not routinely collected to show the number of claims and awards for severe hardship by county or town.
  I have however, shown below information relating to England, the Benefits Agency's Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale District and the North Western Social Security Region (which existed prior to the inception of the Benefits Agency in April 1991).

  Severe Hardship applications, year ending 30 June 1993

  Awards

  Refusals

  Total

  Burnley District 569

  569

  119

  688

  NorthWest

  15,549

  3,159

  18,708

  England

  78,265

  15,400

  93,665

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United States
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions since 1979 Her Majesty's Government have expressed disagreement, or reserve, on any foreign policy initiative of the United States on matters in which both Governments were concerned.

  Mr. Hurd
  The hon. Member will not expect me to list details of all our private discussions with successive United States Administrations over the past 14 years.

  World Trade
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the EC is able to take advantage of opportunities for growth in world trade.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have played a leading role in focusing the Community's attention on the need to improve competitiveness in order to promote economic recovery and secure a greater share of world trade. We will be contributing fully to the Commission's White Paper on this subject. At the same time, we are giving our full support to the Commission's efforts to negotiate a balanced and comprehensive outcome to the Uruguay round which will benefit the United Kingdom, the EC and the world economy generally.
  548

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment as to the possibility of the continued existence of the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina within its present boundaries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Heads of Government at the Group of Seven economic summit in Tokyo on 7 to 9 July reaffirmed their commitment to the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina and to a negotiated settlement based on the principles of the London conference.

  British Industry (Promotion)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are taken by the diplomatic service positively to promote British industry overseas.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Through the overseas trade services, which includes the DTI regional offices as well as our commercial sections overseas, the British Overseas Trade Board and direct contact, the diplomatic service maintains close links with industry. Trade promotion is the largest single activity of the diplomatic service overseas, providing British industry with a wide variety of export services, ranging from tailored market reports and trade fair assistance, to facilitating trade missions and individual business contacts.

  Middle East
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards peace in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Rhodes Boyson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he can report on the middle east peace talks.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict acceptable to the international community.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 10th round of bilateral negotiations adjourned in Washington on 1 July. The Israeli/Palestinian negotiations have reached an important moment. Both sides now face the decision whether to engage in detailed textual negotiations about interim arrangements in the occupied territories. We are urging them to do just this.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Azerbaijan.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Relations with Azerbaijan have been good. We are however concerned by the recent upheavals in Azerbaijan and, together with our EC partners, have called on the leading political figures in Azerbaijan to resolve the present crisis peacefully and constitutionally. We are also concerned at the effects
  549
  which the present crisis is having on efforts to end the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. We are urging all sides to the conflict to implement the CSCE plan to which they have already agreed.

  Channel Islands (Wartime Internment)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the German Government about the payment of compensation to Channel islanders interned in Nazi Germany during the last war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have raised the matter with the German Government on many occasions and at many levels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it with Foreign Minister Kinkel on 12 September 1992. The Germans told us definitively on 7 April that they were not prepared to give the Channel islanders any form of compensation or settlemenp. They said that this decision has been taken at a high political level, and made it clear that they would not reconsider it. We are disappointed by the decision, but I regret that we see no practicable way of taking the Channel islanders' claims any further.

  Gibraltar
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to visit Gibraltar to discuss its position relative to the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs nor I have any present plans to visit Gibraltar. However, we maintain a close dialogue with the Government of Gibraltar on all aspects of Gibraltar's position within the European Community.

  Angola
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held in the Foreign Affairs Council concerning Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Angola was discussed at the European Council in Copenhagen on 21 and 22 June. The Council expressed its support for United Nations Security Council resolution 834 of 1 June, reaffirmed the urgent need for a peaceful solution to the current hostilities based on the Bicesse peace accords and called on UNITA to accept the United Nations plan for humanitarian relief.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position in Angola.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We continue to support United Nations efforts to promote dialogue between the Angolan Government and UNITA, leading to a ceasefire and full implementation of the Bicesse peace accords. To help alleviate suffering caused by fighting we have pledged up to £2 million of humanitarian assistance and 3,000 tonnes of food aid.
  550

  Guatemala
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the new regime in Guatemala since the recent coup; and what assessment he has made of whether it will respect the United Kingdom's view of the status of Belize.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's ambassador in Guatemala City is in regular contact with new Guatemalan authorities. The Guatemalan Foreign Minister has reaffirmed that the Guatemalan Government maintain their predecessor's constructive policy towards Belize.

  Diplomatic Overseas Estate
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total value of all contracts for construction refurbishment, and maintenance of the diplomatic overseas estate in the last year for which figures are available; and what percentage of those contracts in terms of value was placed with United Kingdom businesses.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The total value of all contracts for construction, refurbishment, and maintenance of the diplomatic overseas estate awarded by the overseas estate department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1992 was about £11·5 million. Of this, about 40 per cent. by value was placed with United Kingdom businesses. Small works contracts are also awarded by posts overseas directly to locally based contractors in accordance with delegated authorities.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on when the Maastricht treaty will come into force.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Maastricht treaty will enter into force"on the first day of the month following the deposit of the instrument of ratification by the last signatory State tk take this step"
  as outlined in article R of the treaty.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department takes for promotion of British exports.

  Mr. Goodlad
  It is a key objective of the Department to promote United Kingdom exports. Seventeen per cent. of frontline diplomatic staff and 48 per cent. of senior locally engaged staff working in 196 missions overseas are employed full time on this task.

  Malawi
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Malawi after the recent referendum.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 29 June to my hon. Friend the Member for
  551
  Worcester (Mr. Luff). We are pleased to note that the Malawian constitution has now been amended to allow for the restoration of other political parties. We look forward to further developments in the establishment of a multi-party democracy.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Commonwealth Secretary General concerning Malawi.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  G7 Summit (Tokyo)
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were discussed at the G7 meeting in Tokyo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on Monday,Official Report, columns 671–85.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relations with the Baltic states.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have close and friendly relations with all three Baltic states. We have opened embassies in each of the states and our political and commercial relations are flourishing. One example of our close co-operation is the expanding programme of technical assistance to the Baltic states through the know-how fund.

  Iran
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the persecution of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of confirmed and documented cases of the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, including summary execution, lack of due process of law, harassment, arbitrary detention, confiscation of, and eviction from, property. We have made numerous representations to the Iranian authorities about this issue bilaterally and with our EC partners.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran about persecution of Baha'is in Iran and their threat to take action against Baha'is in the international community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European Community partners have made a number of representations to the Iranian authorities about the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, including during recent discussions between the EC and Iran.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made, or plans to make, to the United Nations Security Council regarding possible breaches by Iran of resolution 598 in respect of attacks on bases of the Mojahedin in Iraq.
  552
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The possible contravention of Security Council resolution 598 is a matter for the Security Council which is permanently seized of the issue. We have expressed our serious concern at these air raids to the Iranian authorities. In a letter of 25 May to the United Nations Secretary-General, the Iranian permanent representative to the United Nations said that the air raids had been carried out in self-defence on the basis of article 51 of the United Nations charter and without prejudice to Iran's policy of respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq or its commitment to Security Council resolution 598.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest United Kingdom position towards the war in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the continuing efforts of Lord Owen and Mr. Stoltenberg to secure a peace settlement in Bosnia, based on the principles of the London conference. We will continue to lend full support to the humanitarian relief operation, and efforts to prevent a possible spillover of the conflict into neighbouring regions.

  Subsidiarity
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently on the implementation of subsidiarity within the European Community.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the implementation of subsidiarity with our partners most recently at the Copenhagen European Council on 21 and 22 June, when M. Delors presented further examples of legislative proposals which would not be taken forward on subsidiarity grounds. This anticipated a full Commission report, to be delivered at the Brussels European Council in December, which will review existing legislation in the light of subsidiarity. We are working closely with other member states at official level, in particular with the French and the Germans, to ensure that this report is substantive.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects next to meet his European counterparts to discuss human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Meetings of European Community Ministers often include discussion of human rights.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have subscribed to the Council of Europe's social charter, but have not ratified the amending protocol opened for signature on 21 October 1991; and if he will make it his policy to encourage those who have not ratified the protocol to do so.
  553
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Pursuant to my answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 422, the list of countries should have included Germany. The full list of countries which have ratified the social charter, but have not ratified the amending protocol is therefore: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.

  Minority Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make representations to the European Community to secure an increase in its budget allocation for European Community minority languages.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No. The Government consider that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. this is a subject better dealt with within a domestic framework having regard to the needs of the individual communities concerned.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Community concerning its proposed budget reduction on minority languages.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No specific United Kingdom representations have been made.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which recommendations of the report, "Heritage in St. Helena", will be implemented; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We cannot yet say which recommendations will be implemented as the report :is still being considered by the St. Helena Government and the St. Helena Heritage Society for which it was prepared.

  Burma
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to seek the extension of the EC arms embargo to Burma to the nations of the Commonwealth.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are no proposals formally to extend the current European Community arms embargo. A number of Commonwealth countries have instituted their own embargo on arms sales to Burma. We encourage others to do so.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches he has made to Japan for a trade embargo on Burma; and what was the response.

  Mr. Goodlad
  As I told the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie in answer to his question on 6 July, wider trade sanctions against Burma do not command the necessary international support. There are no plans to approach Japan about a trade embargo on Burma,Official Report, column 87.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of China about its supply of arms to Burma.
  554
  Mr. Goodlad
  Both bilaterally and in concert with our European Community partners, we have encouraged the Government of China to reconsider its current position on arms sales to Burma.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make special representations to the Burmese Government on the fourth anniversary of the house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Together with our European Community partners we take every opportunity to urge the Burmese authorities to release unconditionally all political detainees, including Aung San Suu Kyi. We are considering with our European Community partners how to mark the fourth anniversary of her house arrest.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish an itemised list of all the commitments entered into by Her Majesty's Government under the documents of the CSCE, as referred to by article 3 of the bilateral treaty with the Russian Federation laid before the House in April.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In addition to the Helsinki Final Act, the charter of Paris for a new Europe, and the Helsinki document of 1992 referred to in the treaty dated 9 November 1992 with the Russian Federation, CSCE commitments are also to be found in conclusions of the Madrid (1980–83) and Vienna (1986–89) follow-up meetings as well as subsequent meetings such as the Copenhagen conference on the human dimension (1990), the Moscow conference on the human dimension (1990) and the Stockholm summit of 1992. Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House. It would involve disproportionate expense to produce an itemised list of all the commitments entered into at these and other CSCE meetings.

  Tibet
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take with his EC colleagues following the resolution on Tibet passed by the European Parliament, with particular reference to access by Governments and international human rights agencies to Tibet.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are deeply concerned about the situation in Tibet, including the human rights issues mentioned in the European Parliament resolution, and are in close contact with our European Community partners about further measures to follow up the EC statement of 1 June. We support the principle of free access by humanitarian agencies.

  Yugoslavia
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many monitors the United Kingdom has sent to Kosovo.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom has provided two monitors for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe's long-term missions in Kosovo, Sandjak and Vojvodina—one of whom has returned to the United Kingdom—and has offered a further three
  555
  monitors. The future of the missions is, however, in doubt following Belgrade's refusal to renew the memorandum of understanding covering the missions.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will submit plans to the UN Security Council for lifting the siege of Sarajevo by military means through attacks on Serb artillery positions around the city; and what other plans he has to prevent the fall of Sarajevo within the next few months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Sarajevo is one of six safe areas established under UN Security Council resolution 824 of 6 May. SCR 836 of 4 June expanded the mandate to include deterring attacks against safe areas. We are pressing for full implementation of that resolution. At present there are no further plans for military intervention in Sarajevo.

  Country

  Post

  United Kingdom- of based staff 1993

  of which

  Trade 1993

  Aid 1993

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  16

  2·00

  0·05

  Belize

  Belmopan

  6

  0·40

  1·15

  Bolivia

  La Paz

  4

  0·20

  0·00

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  17

  0·70

  0·05

  Rio de Janeiro

  5

  1·25

  0·00

  Sao Paulo

  4

  2·00

  0·00

  Chile

  Santiago

  14

  2·00

  0·15

  Colombia

  Bogota

  10

  1·45

  0·20

  Costa Rica

  San Jose

  4

  1·10

  0·80

  Cuba

  Havana

  10

  0·35

  0·05

  Ecuador

  Quito

  5

  0·65

  0·50

  El Salvador

  San Salvador

  2

  0·05

  0·05

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City

  6

  0·20

  0·25

  Honduras

  Tegucigalpa

  2

  0·15

  0·35

  Mexico

  Mexico City

  17

  2·30

  0·40

  Nicaragua

  Managua

  2

  0·25

  0·55

  Panama

  Panama City

  2

  0·35

  0·00

  Paraguay

  Asuncion

  2

  0·45

  0·05

  Peru

  Lima

  6

  0·45

  0·30

  Uruguay

  Montevideo

  4

  0·30

  0·25

  Venezuela

  Caracas

  12

  2·00

  0·00

  OVERALL TOTALS

  150

  18·60

  5·15

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to President Menem's suggestion that the flags of Britain and Argentina should both fly over the Falkland islands.

  Mr. Heathcote-Amory
  We have received no such proposal from the Argentine Government. The Falkland islands are British territory and will remain so. The only appropriate flag is the Union flag.

  Austria
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if a time scale for Austrian membership of the EC has been established.

  Mr. Heathcote-Amory
  The European Council in Copenhagen, with the strong support of the British Government, agreed a target date of 1 January 1995 for the accession of Austria, along with Finland, Sweden and Norway.
  556

  South American Graduates
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he is doing to promote graduate training in Europe of south American nationals; and what assessment he has of the number of such graduates in Europe in 1983 and the most recent available date.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There has been no reduction in the number of British Missions in Latin America in the last 12 months. The number of United Kingdom-based staff was reduced from 162 to 150 in the 12 months up to June 1993.

  A table of diplomatic service staff in each Post in June 1993, together with the man years dedicated to aid and trade, is as follows:

DEFENCE

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the provision of RAF Jaguar aircraft to take part in NATO operations to provide air support for UNPROFOR.

  Mr. Hanley
  On 10 June my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced—Official Report, column 336—that we were offering a squadron of RAF Jaguar aircraft to take part in an operation to be mounted by NATO to provide air support in case of attack against UNPROFOR in the performance of its mandate in Bosnia. This offer has now been formally accepted and 12 aircraft have been called forward to deploy to Italy, where they will be based. They will fly out on Friday 16 July, and will conduct training and work-up. Routine operational flying will start on a day to be determined by NATO and the UN. The RN Sea Harriers embarked in HMS Ark Royal are also available for this purpose if required.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regular reports he receives on the effectiveness of the
  557
  UN no-fly zone monitoring operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina; and if he is satisfied that the current monitoring procedure is cost effective (a) overall and (b) in respect of airborne warning and control system.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have been asked to reply.

  We receivetwice-weekly reports from UNPROFOR on violations observed by UN military observers and NATO fighter and AWACS aircraft. We believe the monitoring operation has been successful in preventing combat flights, particularly of fixed -wing aircraft. The information collected by AWACS aircraft is essential for proper monitoring and enforcement of the no-fly zone.

  Princess Mary's Hospital, Cyprus
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to privatise spare bed capacity at the Princess Mary's hospital, Sovereign base, Cyprus.

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no plans to privatise any beds at the Princess Mary's RAF hospital, Akrotiri. The hospital has a defined service role in peacetime and war. Civilian patients are already admitted there for treatment, subject to available bed space, on a repayment basis. This widens the case mix and the professional training and experience of service doctors.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide medical equipment at the Princess Mary's hospital comparable to that in NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Princess Mary's RAF hospital, Akrotiri, is already sufficiently equipped for its peacetime role.

  Ammunition Stocks
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current levels of ammunition stocks relative to the levels before the Gulf war.

  Mr. Hanley
  Stocks of ammunition have been reconstituted following the Gulf conflict, and some replenishment has taken place. In some areas, however, replenishment has not been necessary due to force level reductions. The actual types and quantities of stocks are based on weapons in service and NATO guidance. It is not the practice of the Government to give details of such stocks.

  Skyguard Radar
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his oral statement of 17 June,Official Report, column 1012, if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Air Force's covert monitoring Skyguard system.

  (2) what will be the impact of the disbandment of 1339 Wing Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment on the deployment of Skyguard radars in the low-flying monitoring role.

  Mr. Hanley
  The disbandment of 1339 Wing Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment will not affect deployment of the Skyguard radar system in the low-flying monitoring role. Arrangements are being made to transfer the system to RAF Spadeadam, from where it will continue to be deployed in this role.
  558
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying aircraft have been monitored by Skyguard radar since its introduction in the low-flying monitoring role; and how many of the observed aircraft were found to be(a) breaching height regulations, (b) breaching speed regulations and (c) infringing avoidance areas laterally.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since June 1989 when Skyguard was first used to monitor low flying, 1,426 aircraft have been observed at medium or low level. Of these, nine were detected in apparent breach of regulations; seven in respect of height and two in respect of infringing avoidance areas laterally.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the dates, (b) locations, (c) types of aircraft involved, (d) circumstances and (e) altitudes of all (i) category A and (ii) category B air misses involving military aircraft over the United Kingdom since 1988.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  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 write to the hon. Member in respect of the air misses at Alnwick on 16 July 1992.

  Mr. Hanley
  The RAF board of inquiry is not yet complete but my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member as soon as the board of inquiry reports.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of air misses since 1980 which have involved RAF Tornado aircraft; and in how many of these the investigating authorities have found that the Tornado crew did not see the reporting aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department has given to the fitting of air-to-air transponder equipment to low-flying military aircraft to provide warning to other air traffic.

  Mr. Hanley
  A contact for a technology demonstrator programme, to prove the technology needed to provide low-flying military aircraft with collision warning facilities, was placed with Easams Ltd. in January 1993.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by month, for the last six months, the number of low-level air-to-air interceptor practice sorties flown over the United Kingdom by military jet aircraft; and if he will show in his answer the nationality of the aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  559

  Attack Runs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total number of attack runs made by aircraft at each air-to-ground weapons range in the United Kingdom by year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned proportionate decrease in the number of operational strike/attack/reconnaissance pilots in the Royal Air Force from 1988 to 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Royal Air Force plans to maintain numbers of fast-jet aircrew in each role, at the levels necessary to meet commitments. The size of the RAF's front-line units in 1988 was set out in annex C to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988 (Cm 344–1) and the current position is shown at annex D to the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993 (Cm 2270).

  Service Personnel (Watches)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been for the last 12 months in providing watches to service personnel in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Hanley
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Royal Naval Reserve
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the existing training divisions or establishments in the United Kingdom which form part of the Royal Naval Reserve; which of these are to be closed; and why they have been selected for closure.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the consultation document on the future of Britain's naval reserve forces, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  A number of factors were taken into consideration. Many units were designed largely to support their mine countermeasure, naval control of shipping and defence of ports and anchorage roles which are no longer required. Also relevant is the need for a geographical spread of reserve centres throughout the United Kingdom in the areas of good recruitment, the state of repair of the buildings and maintenance running costs. These proposals are subject to consultation which will extend up to 30 July.

  "Newsnight" Interview
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a transcript of the interview by the Minister for the Armed Forces on "Newsnight" of 5 July in the Library.

  Mr. Hanley
  Yes.
  560

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the names of those countries in the middle east to which the United Kingdom has sold arms since 1979; and what was the total value of those sales.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal details of arms sales to individual countries. However, the total value of sales to the region since 1979 is some £21 billion.

  Sir Bedivere
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether tenders for the refurbishment for the landing ship Logistic Sir Bedivere will be restricted to particular shipyards.

  Mr. Aitken
  Tenders will he invited from all interested and suitably qualified companies.

  Disabled Employees
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many registered disabled people were employed in his Department in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Aitken
  Figures for the number of registered disabled people for the period before 1989 are unavailable. Details for years 1989 to 1993 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of Registered Disabled People

  Percentage of MOD Total Work Force

  1989

  1,202

  1·0

  1990

  1,210

  0·9

  1991

  1,164

  0·9

  1992

  1,164

  0·9

  11993

  1,439

  1·1

  11993 figures exclude Defence Research Agency, Meteorological Office and AWE. The increase on the previous year of 0·2 per cent, was as a result of a re-survey of the non-industrial work force in 1992.

  Refitting Tenders
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times tenderers for refit work on ships have been asked to submit the final bid(a) once, (b) twice, (c) three times and (d) more than three times for each year for the last five years fkr which information is available.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost and effort, as I will explain in a letter I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Devonport Dockyard (Wages)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the average hourly wage rate at the royal naval dockyard at Devonport when it was privatised.

  Mr. Aitken
  The precise details requested are not available. However, immediately prior to the commencement of the Government-owned contractor-operated arrangement at Devonport dockyard on 1 April 1987, the average hourly labour rate was about £6.
  561

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from Clwyd county council in regard to the forthcoming nuclear review; and what response he has made to the council.

  Mr. Eggar
  Clwyd county council wrote to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 1 July about the review. The reply explained that an announcement on the review would be made in due course.

  New Technology
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department gives to British manufacturing companies to invest in new technology.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The main assistance the Government provide to firms to invest in new technology is creating an environment which encourages such investment. The Department also provides support by helping companies gain access to science and technology and innovation best practice and strengthening the local infrastructure and networks for delivery of innovation-related services. Specific support for the development of new technology is also available through such schemes as the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART), support for products under research (SPUR) and regional enterprise grants for investment and innovation projects. Support will continue for industry/higher education institute collaboration under LINK and for European collaboration under EUREKA.

  Armed Services Trainers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to ensure the full utilisation in British industry of the skilled trainers declared redundant from the armed services.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Wealth creation and the best use of resources in British industry is supported by a wide range of DTI schemes which are complementary to Department of Employment's and the armed forces' programmes and the overall Government strategy of providing the best environment in which companies operate.

  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 1988 in each of the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 436, in which I gave figures for the amount of Government aid to the coal industry provided in the United Kingdom for the years 1987–88 to 1992–93. Comparable figures for each of the other OECD countries are not readily available.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the renewable energy advisory group and the timetable of that 562
  work, with particular reference to wind energy; and when he expects to make the next non-fossil fuel obligation order.

  Mr. Eggar
  The report of the renewable energy advisory group (REAG) was published in December 1992 and a copy placed in the Library of the House. The Government will publish a renewable energy strategy document later this year which will include wind energy. An announcement will be made on the next renewable energy order under the non-fossil fuel obligation as soon as possible.

  Power Plants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current output from nuclear power plants; and what was the projected United Kingdom ouput for 1993 given in the Windscale inquiry report.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the first quarter of 1993 nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom supplied 21.8 terawatt hours of electricity. No projected United Kingdom power plant output for 1993 was given in the Windscale inquiry report.

  Post Office
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers he has to review a decision by the Post Office for the award of an agency contract.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no specific powers to direct the Post Office on the award of individual agency contracts. Since the Post Office became a public corporation in 1969, it has been the policy of successive Governments that matters relating to the day to running of the Post Office are the responsibility of the Post Office Board.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what standards his Department lays down for the award of agency contracts by the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department does not lay down standards for the award of agency contracts for sub-post offices as this is a commercial and operational matter for the Post Office.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many agency Post Office contracts have been awarded to senior Post Office staff for the period for which records are available.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Of the 617 directly operated post offices converted to agencies between April 1989 and May 1993, 189 have been awarded to former Post Office employees. The Post Office keeps no separate records of awards by grade nor of unsuccessful applications by its employees, but the number of senior personnel involved is thought to be very small.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints there have been about the award of agency contracts by the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has in recent years received representations in two previous cases about the award of agency contracts.
  563
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the remedies available for a review of a decision by the Post Office.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Other than the general remedies provided under the law, there is no specific right of appeal against non-appointment to an agency contract which is a commercial matter for the Post Office. Customers who have unresolved complaints about Post Office services may approach the Post Office Users' National Council.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the criteria used by the Post Office for the award of contracts to senior staff.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. This is a matter for the Post Office in the day-to-day management of its business. The basic principle followed by the Post Office in the award of all contracts to run agency post offices is to appoint the most suitable candidate in order to provide high-quality services to its customers and clients and to safeguard Post Office assets.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many agency contracts for post offices on the Isle of Wight have been awarded to senior Post Office personnel.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  One.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last visited Ventnor post office; and when he next intends to do so.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Boad of Trade has not visited Ventnor post office and has no plans to do so.

  South America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what policy he has to enable the Export Credits Guarantee Department to make risk assessments which would allow British firms to compete with foreign competition in south American markets.

  Mr. Needham
  The provision of ECGD cover for all markets is determined by an assessment carried out under its portfolio management system. This seeks to strike a balance between enabling British exporters to compete for business overseas with Government support, and the potential cost to the taxpayer if ECGD sustains losses.

  Latin America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what increases have taken place in Export Credits Guarantee Department rates to Latin America for medium and long-term capital gains schemes, for convenient dates over the last decade.

  Mr. Needham
  Figures are not readily available for premiums charged during the 1980s. Since 1991, the cost of ECGD cover has been more directly linked to the assessment of the risks. Premium rates area also individually tailored according to the features of each piece of business. Overall,average increases/decreases for premium rates for Latin American markets for which cover has been available throughout this period have been:
  564

  Per cent

  1991

  +10

  1992

  -29

  1993

  +22

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what he is doing to encourage medium-sized British companies to operate in Latin America.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade led a business mission to Mexico and Argentina in June 1993. Bilateral trade facilitation groups have been established with Colombia and Mexico, and the Proyecto Venezuela initiative is being continued. In addition, there is a full programme of outward and inward trade missions, exhibitions, seminars and other promotional activities organised with the help of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group (LATAG). The programme aims to encourage small and medium-sized British companies to operate in Latin America.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the results of his exports promotion scheme in relation to six major Latin American markets.

  Mr. Needham
  The new export promotion scheme is in its initial stages. Each of the six major Latin American markets will be allocated at least one industry secondee and one market desk officer dedicated to the promotion of that market. The export promoter and dedicated market official will be responsible for the development and implementation of an export strategy for their market.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken to bring in people with experience of Latin American markets into relevant posts(a) at his Department's headquarters and (b) in British missions abroad.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has written to a large number of United Kingdom companies inviting them to provide secondees to the Department. So far, two export promoters have been appointed for Latin America, and we hope to recruit a further seven. The majority of commercial staff in British missions overseas are recruited from the local private sector.

  Argentina
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the credit offered by competitors of the United Kingdom in deciding the level of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover in Argentina.

  Mr. Needham
  The recent restoration of cover for Argentina was decided on the basis of an assessment of the risks involved. Although account was taken of the position of export credit agencies (ECAs) in other countries, it is not Government policy to seek to match other ECAs when determining cover arrangements and premium charges.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many companies registered with Companies House ceased trading in each of the last five years; what
  565
  reasons were recorded for this; and in how many cases the company concerned had failed to submit accounts in the previous year;

  (2) how many companies failed to provide Companies house with a full set of accounts in each of the last five years; what percentage of registered companies this represents; and in how many cases directors were prosecuted for this failure.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the chief executive of Companies House executive agency for which my Department is responsible. I have therefore asked Mr. David Durham to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Durham to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 12 July 1993:
  On 7 July you tabled the following two Parliamentary Questions:
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many companies registered with Companies House ceased trading in each of the last five years; what reasons were recorded for this; and in how many cases the company concerned had failed to submit accounts in the previous year.
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, how many companies failed to provide Companies House with a full set of accounts in each of the last five years; and

  Section A—Analysis of The Companies Register

  Table Al Summary of changes in the number of companies on the register, 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Thousands of companies

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Great Britain

  On register at start of period

  1,115·2

  1,133·2

  1,175·4

  1,186·9

  1,180·2

  New companies incorporated

  135·0

  126·3

  115·5

  112·0

  108·8

  Dissolved

  118·2

  85·6

  105·4

  119·9

  153·9

  Restored to the register

  1·2

  1·5

  1·4

  1·2

  1·4

  On register at end of period

  1,133·2

  1,175·4

  1,186·9

  1,180·2

  1,136·4

  Of which: in liquidation

  63·2

  65·1

  72·3

  84·3

  92·9

  In course of removal

  97·1

  100·6

  82·7

  116·1

  82·9

  Effective numbers on register at end of period

  972·8

  1,009·7

  1,031·9

  979·8

  960·6

  England and Wales

  On register at start of period

  1,061·3

  1,075·9

  1,115·0

  1,125·1

  1,117·9

  New companies incorporated

  128·1

  119·3

  108·7

  105·4

  102·7

  Dissolved

  114·6

  81·6

  99·9

  113·8

  147·2

  Restored to the register

  1·1

  1·4

  1·3

  1·1

  1·3

  On register at end of period

  1,075·9

  1,115·0

  1,125·1

  1,117·9

  1,074·6

  Change on previous year (per cent.)

  1·4

  3·6

  0·9

  -0·6

  -3·9

  Of which: in liquidation

  60·1

  61·6

  68·3

  80·5

  88·8

  In course of removal

  92·2

  95·0

  78·5

  111·2

  78·9

  Effective numbers on register at end of period

  923·5

  958·4

  978·3

  926·2

  906·8

  Change on previous year (per cent.)

  6·6

  3·8

  2·1

  -5·3

  -2·1

  Scotland

  On register at start of period

  53·9

  57·3

  60·4

  61·8

  62·3

  New companies incorporated

  6·9

  7·0

  6·8

  6·5

  6·1

  Dissolved

  3·6

  4·0

  5·5

  6·1

  6·7

  Restored to the register

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  On register at end of period

  57·3

  60·4

  61·8

  62·3

  61·8

  Change on previous year (per cent.)

  6·3

  5·4

  2·3

  0·8

  -0·7

  Of which: in liquidation

  3·1

  3·5

  4·0

  3·8

  4·1

  In course of removal

  4·9

  5·6

  4·2

  4·9

  4·0

  Effective numbers on register at end of period

  49·3

  51·3

  53·6

  53·6

  53·8

  Change on previous year (per cent.)

  10·1

  4·1

  4·4

  0·0

  0·4

  566
  what percentage of registered companies this represents; and in how many cases directors were prosecuted for this failure.

  Following the answer given by Mr. Hamilton, I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House.

  I am unable to provide the precise figures you require but the figures contained in the attached five tables provide similar information to that requested. This and other information will be made available in the report made each year by the Secretary of State to Parliament under section 729 of the Companies Act 1985. In the meantime, last year's report "Companies in 1991–92" may be of further help.

  I am sorry that I cannot provide precisely the information you require but most of the figures are not kept or aggregated in the form you request. Specifically, we do not keep aggregated information on whether a company in receivership or liquidation has filed accounts for its previous financial year. Because of the limited court time available to Companies House and the length of time it takes to get a case to court, I am also unable to provide figures that establish a direct relationship between prosecutions for non-filing and a company's financial year to which the offence relates.

  As it is not a statutory requirement to inform Companies House of the reasons why a company discontinues trading and, there is no requirement for a company that ceases to trade to be removed from the register, I am unable to give the number of companies that have ceased to trade in the terms that you specify. Finally, as Section 246 Companies Act 1985 allows companies to file abbreviated accounts in certain circumstances, the "compliance table" (table F3) interprets the words "full accounts" in the widest sense to mean that accounts have been received that comply with the requirements of the Act.

  I hope that this reply covers the points tabled in your questions.
  567

  Section C—Removals from the Register and
  Liquidations

  Table Cl Companies removed from the registers, 1988–89
  to 1992–93

  Thousands of companies

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1992

  1992

  1992

  1993

  Great Britain

  Struck off and dissolved

  106·60

  72·4

  93·6

  107·9

  137·2

  24·7

  30·9

  41·8

  39·8

  Wound up voluntarily or subject to the supervision of the Court under the Companies Acts

  12·3

  13·2

  11·8

  11·9

  16·7

  3·7

  4·2

  3·6

  5·2

  Total removed from the register Less:

  118·3

  85·6

  105·4

  119·9

  153·9

  28·4

  35·1

  45·4

  45·0

  Restorations to the register

  1·2

  1·5

  1·4

  1·2

  1·4

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·5

  Net total of removals

  117·1

  84·1

  104·0

  118·7

  152·5

  28·1

  34·8

  45·1

  44·5

  England and Wales

  Struck off and dissolved

  103·0

  69·0

  88·6

  102·9

  131·1

  23·7

  29·0

  40·5

  37·9

  Wound up voluntarily or subject to the supervision of the Court under the Companies Acts

  11·7

  12·6

  11·3

  10·9

  16·1

  3·6

  4·1

  3·4

  5·0

  Total removed from the register Less:

  114·7

  81·6

  99·9

  113·8

  147·2

  27·3

  33·1

  43·9

  42·9

  Restorations to the register

  1·1

  1·4

  1·3

  1·1

  1·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·4

  Net total of removals

  113·6

  80·2

  98·6

  112·7

  145·9

  27·0

  32·8

  43·6

  42·5

  Scotland

  Struck off and dissolved

  3·0

  3·4

  5·0

  5·0

  6·1

  1·0

  1·8

  1·3

  1·9

  Wound up voluntarily or subject to the supervision of the Court under the Companies Acts

  0·6

  0·6

  0·5

  1·1

  0·6

  0·1

  0·2

  0·1

  0·1

  Total removed from the register Less:

  3·6

  4·0

  5·5

  6·1

  6·7

  1·2

  2·0

  1·5

  2·1

  Restorations to the register

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  0·1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Net total of removals

  3·5

  3·9

  5·4

  6·0

  6·6

  1·1

  2·0

  1·4

  2·0

  1—Fewer than 50 companies.

  Table C2 Liquidations and receiverships notified,
  1988–89 to 1992–93

  Number of companies

  April-June

  July-Septmber

  October-December

  January-March

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1992

  1992

  1992

  1993

  Great Britain

  Compulsory Liquidations

  3,789

  4,655

  7,043

  9,210

  9,861

  2,681

  1,804

  2,879

  2,497

  Creditors' voluntary Liquidations

  6,011

  6,981

  10,610

  14,127

  15,164

  3,521

  3,957

  3,787

  3,899

  Total insolvencies

  9,800

  11,636

  17,653

  23,337

  25,025

  6,202

  5,761

  6,666

  6,396

  Members' voluntary Liquidations

  4,063

  4,215

  4,172

  3,985

  3,719

  905

  693

  931

  1,190

  Total Liquidations

  13,863

  15,851

  21,825

  27,322

  28,744

  7,107

  6,454

  7,597

  7,586

  Receiverships notified

  1,252

  2,423

  5,580

  8,756

  7,815

  1,987

  1,962

  1,959

  1,907

  Administrator appointments

  187

  160

  237

  176

  123

  37

  54

  15

  17

  Company voluntary arrangements

  52

  49

  75

  129

  67

  16

  23

  12

  16

  England and Wales

  Compulsory Liquidations

  3,544

  4,433

  6,786

  8,911

  9,542

  2,609

  1,710

  2,796

  2,427

  Creditors' voluntary Liquidations

  5,837

  6,783

  10,378

  13,808

  14,786

  3,434

  3,867

  3,677

  3,808

  Total insolvencies

  9,391

  11,216

  17,164

  22,719

  24,328

  6,043

  5,577

  6,473

  6,235

  Members' voluntary

  3,809

  3,984

  3,941

  3,741

  3,501

  851

  659

  852

  1,139

  Liquidations Total Liquidations

  13,200

  15,200

  21,105

  26,460

  27,829

  6,894

  6,236

  7,325

  7,374

  Receiverships notified

  1,133

  2,266

  5,327

  8,503

  7,522

  1,904

  1,899

  1,906

  1,813

  Administrator appointments

  179

  152

  222

  162

  121

  36

  53

  15

  17

  568 569

  April-June

  July-Septmber

  October-December

  January-March

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  April-June 1992

  July-September 1992

  October-December 1992

  January-March 1993

  Company voluntary arrangements

  52

  49

  75

  129

  67

  16

  23

  12

  16

  Scotland

  Compulsory Liquidations

  235

  222

  257

  299

  319

  72

  94

  83

  70

  Creditors' voluntary Liquidations

  174

  198

  232

  319

  378

  87

  90

  110

  91

  Total insolvencies

  409

  420

  489

  618

  697

  159

  184

  193

  161

  Members' voluntary Liquidations

  254

  231

  231

  244

  218

  54

  34

  79

  51

  Total Liquidations

  663

  651

  720

  862

  915

  213

  218

  272

  212

  Receiverships notified

  119

  157

  253

  253

  293

  83

  63

  53

  94

  Administrator appointments

  8

  8

  15

  14

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Company voluntary arrangements

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table D3 Prosecutions by the Department under the Companies Act
  1985

  Section and Offence

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  England and Wales

  241(3) and 243(1) Failure to deliver Accounts (Number of Offences)

  Prosecutions

  4,543

  4,443

  5,680

  7,534

  6,451

  Convictions

  2,452

  2,513

  3,030

  3,270

  3,315

  Percentage convictions

  54·0

  56·6

  53·3

  43·4

  51·4

  Number adjourned to a later hearing date

  287

  196

  386

  527

  309

  Number of charges where a conviction was not obtained

  1,764

  1,614

  2,271

  3,667

  2,770

  365(3) Failure to deliver Annual Returns (Number of Offences)

  Prosecutions

  2,467

  2,359

  3,050

  3,780

  3,843

  Convictions

  1,269

  1,245

  1,581

  1,549

  1,897

  Percentage convictions

  51·4

  52·8

  51·8

  41·0

  49·4

  Number adjourned to a later hearing date

  137

  108

  212

  286

  152

  Number of charges where a conviction was not obtained

  1,032

  930

  1,282

  1,921

  1,708

  Number of directors involved in proceedings

  2,639

  2,800

  3,356

  4,122

  3,421

  Number of directors convicted

  1,125

  1,558

  1,864

  1,661

  1,826

  Percentage directors convicted

  42·6

  55·6

  55·5

  40·3

  53·4

  Number of companies involved in proceedings

  1,595

  1,763

  2,208

  2.504

  2,145

  Number of companies in which directors convicted

  956

  1,005

  1,284

  1,080

  1,168

  Percentage companies in which directors convicted

  59·9

  57·0

  58·2

  43·1

  54·5

  Scotland

  241(3) and 243(1) Failure to deliver Accounts (Number of Offences)

  Prosecutions

  178

  368

  258

  1,159

  587

  Convictions

  35

  55

  52

  210

  98

  Percentage convictions

  19·7

  14·9

  20·2

  18·1

  16·7

  Number adjourned to a later hearing date

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Number of charges where a conviction was not obtained

  143

  313

  206

  949

  489

  365(3) Failure to deliver Annual Returns (Number of Offences)

  Prosecutions

  58

  160

  122

  381

  462

  Convictions

  18

  22

  46

  34

  48

  Percentage convictions

  31·0

  13·8

  37·7

  8·9

  10·4

  Number adjourned to a later hearing date

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Number of charges where a conviction was not obtained

  40

  138

  76

  347

  414

  Number of directors involved in proceedings

  358

  309

  497

  835

  767

  Number of directors convicted

  53

  77

  98

  55

  89

  Percentage directors convicted

  14·8

  10·9

  19·7

  6·6

  11·6

  570 571

  Section and Offence

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number of companies involved in proceedings

  180

  347

  251

  442

  406

  Number of companies in which directors convicted

  33

  40

  40

  32

  60

  Percentage companies in which directors convicted

  18·3

  11·5

  15·9

  7·2

  14·8

  Notes:

  1. The majority of charges where convictions were not obtained was as a result of the annual
  returns and accounts being filed and the prosecutions not proceeded with.

  2. A number of prosecutions dealt with in the above were started before April 1992.

  Table F2 Annual accounts registered at Companies House by type, 1989–90 to 1991–92

  Thousands and percentages

  1989–90 000s

  Percentage

  1990–91 000s

  Percentage

  1991–92 000s

  Percentage

  1992–93 000s

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  Full

  443·9

  55·8

  425·2

  54·3

  436·8

  53·0

  453·2

  51·3

  Abbreviated:

  Small

  253·7

  31·9

  252·3

  32·2

  268·2

  32·5

  300·1

  34·0

  Medium

  3·6

  0·5

  3·8

  0·5

  4·4

  0·5

  5·2

  0·6

  Group

  21·8

  2·7

  24·0

  3·1

  22·2

  2·7

  19·2

  2·2

  Dormant

  71·6

  9·0

  78·1

  10·0

  92·7

  11·2

  106·0

  12·0

  Interim/initial

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  Total

  794·8

  100·0

  783·6

  100·0

  824·3

  100·0

  883·8

  100·0

  England and Wales

  Full

  421·7

  55·9

  403·4

  54·4

  415·4

  53·2

  430·6

  51·5

  Abbreviated:

  Small

  239·9

  31·8

  237·7

  32·0

  252·7

  32·3

  281·6

  33·7

  Medium

  3·4

  0·4

  3·5

  0·5

  4·1

  0·5

  4·8

  0·6

  Group

  20·7

  2·7

  22·7

  3·1

  20·9

  2·7

  18·0

  2·2

  Dormant

  68·5

  9·1

  74·4

  10·0

  88·3

  11·3

  101·0

  12·1

  Interim/initial

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  0·2

  0·0

  Total

  754·3

  100·0

  742·0

  100·0

  781·6

  100·0

  836·1

  100·0

  Scotland

  Full

  22·2

  54·8

  21·8

  52·4

  21·3

  49·8

  22·7

  47·6

  Abbreviated:

  Small

  13·9

  34·2

  14·6

  35·1

  15·5

  36·3

  18·5

  38·8

  Medium

  0·2

  0·6

  0·2

  0·6

  0·3

  0·7

  0·4

  0·8

  Group

  1·1

  2·7

  1·3

  3·2

  1·3

  3·0

  1·1

  2·4

  Dormant

  3·1

  7·6

  3·6

  8·7

  4·3

  10·1

  5·0

  10·4

  Interim/initial

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·0

  0·1

  Total

  40·5

  100·0

  41·6

  100·0

  42·7

  100·0

  47·6

  100·0

  Table F3 Compliance rates for annual returns and accounts 1988
  to 1993

  Thousands of companies Per cent of effective register

  June 1988

  June 1989

  June 1990

  June 1991

  June 1992

  September 1992

  December 1992

  March 1993

  June 1993

  Great Britain

  Effective register

  917

  985

  1,016

  984

  974

  973

  969

  960

  954

  Companies up-to-date in filing:

  Annual returns

  814

  859

  916

  846

  874

  875

  876

  866

  870

  Percentage

  88·8

  87·2

  90·1

  86·0

  89·7

  90·0

  90·4

  90₷2

  91₷2

  Accounts

  783

  831

  874

  850

  894

  902

  904

  883

  898

  Percentage

  85·4

  84·4

  86·0

  86·4

  91·8

  92·7

  93·3

  92·0

  94·2

  Both returns and accounts

  734

  774

  829

  769

  828

  835

  840

  823

  841

  Percentage

  80·0

  78·6

  81·6

  78·2

  85·0

  85·8

  86·7

  85·7

  88·1

  Companies in default:

  Total Per cent

  20·0

  21·4

  18·4

  21·8

  15·0

  14·2

  13·3

  14·3

  11·9

  England and Wales

  Effective register

  872

  936

  964

  931

  921

  919

  915

  906

  900

  Companies up-to-date in filing:

  Annual returns

  775

  817

  868

  799

  825

  825

  826

  817

  821

  572 573

  June 1988

  June 1989

  June 1990

  June 1991

  June 1992

  September 1992

  December 1992

  March 1993

  June 1993

  Percentage

  88·8

  87·3

  90·0

  85·8

  89·6

  89·8

  90·3

  90·1

  91·2

  Accounts

  742

  787

  827

  802

  844

  851

  853

  833

  848

  Percentage

  85·1

  84·1

  85·7

  86·1

  91·6

  92·6

  93·2

  92·0

  94·2

  Both returns and accounts

  697

  734

  784

  725

  781

  787

  792

  776

  792

  Percentage

  79·9

  78·4

  81·3

  77·9

  84·8

  85·6

  86·5

  85·6

  88·0

  Companies in default:

  Total Per cent.

  20·1

  21·6

  18·7

  22·1

  15·2

  14·4

  13·5

  14·4

  12·0

  Scotland

  Effective register

  45

  52

  53

  53

  53

  54

  54

  54

  54

  Companies up-to-date in filing:

  Annual returns

  39

  42

  48

  47

  49

  50

  50

  49

  50

  Percentage

  87·0

  86·2

  92·0

  88·8

  91·5

  93·3

  92·5

  91·8

  92·5

  Accounts

  41

  44

  47

  48

  50

  51

  51

  50

  51

  Percentage

  92·0

  90·7

  91·1

  91·8

  93·5

  94·3

  94·3

  92·7

  94·1

  Both returns and accounts

  37

  40

  45

  44

  47

  48

  48

  47

  48

  Percentage

  82·2

  81·8

  87·1

  84·2

  88·0

  90·2

  90·0

  87·8

  89·4

  Companies in default:

  Total Per cent.

  17·8

  18·2

  12·9

  15·8

  12·0

  9·8

  10·0

  12·2

  10·6

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set the National Engineering Laboratory for 1993–94.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  When it was launched as an executive agency in October 1990, the National Engineering Laboratory was set the target of recovering its full costs through "arms-length" contracts from customers by 1994–95. This is still its primary target.

  Other key targets I have set the laboratory for 1993–94 are as follows:

  to obtain the return of and review at least 60 per cent. of contract completion questionnaires from clients;

  to carry out customer consultations and post-completion reviews of 20 per cent. of all contracts valued in excess of £250,000;

  to achieve laboratory-wide ISO 9001 accreditation by 31 March 1994;

  to increase the number of non-DTI customers who provide revenues of more than £100,000 per annum by 50 per cent.; and

  to complete the training of nominated staff in eight competences covered by the four current training programmes.

  I have also set the chief executive of the agency the target of replying within 10 working days to letters from MPs delegated to him for reply.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the regulations which have been abolished, with dates, since the establishment of the deregulation unit.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]Records are not kept in this form. The deregulation unit has the job of encouraging Government Departments to take proper account of the impact on business of their policies and does not use the number of regulations abolished as a measure of success.

  Much regulation is necessary but over-burdensome and is being examined with a view to simplification without prejudice to the legitimate protection of the public.
  574
  The aim is to make regulatory costs proportionate to the benefits.

  RECHAR
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those organisations which his Department intends to consult in relation to the European Commission proposal to introduce RECHAR II from 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: RECHAR I has been one of fourteen "Community Initiatives" under the European structural funds. The Commission has issued a Green Paper on Community initiatives after 1993, but has so far made no formal proposals. The future of Community initiatives, including any RECHAR II, will be considered by the Council later this year.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), 6 July,Official Report. columns 105–6, what were the voting figures for each decision taken at the European Community's Foreign Affairs Council held on 2 July; and if he will make it his policy to include in future statements on council meetings information on whether formal votes were taken and which member states voted in favour, against or abstained on particular measures.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 13 July 1993]: No formal votes were taken at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 2 July. I regret that this was not made clear in my answer of 6 July, in accordance with the undertaking given to the hon. Member that statements to the House following meetings of the Council of Ministers will either include details of the vote whenever a formal vote is taken, or report that no formal votes were taken.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help his Department is giving to those small businesses affected by the phase-out of CFC 113.
  575
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 13 July 1993] : CFC 113 is largely used as an industrial solvent. My Department commissioned a study on the phase-out of CFCs in the solvents sector and the availability of substitutes; the implications for small and medium-sized enterprises were specifically addressed. The Department has since supported a series of regional seminars organised by the Engineering Employers Federation, to make practical advice about alternatives available to small firms in particular; and a booklet encapsulating that advice is about to be issued. DTI has also supported a study concerning CFC elimination in the cleaning of electronic assemblies and the results have been published. As part of a general campaign by my Department to alert businesses to the phasing-out of ozone-depleting substances, a one-page flier about CFC 113 phase-out was circulated by the Health and Safety Executive to all dry cleaners.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arts Council
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions grants have been made available by the Northern Ireland Arts Council under its(a) bursaries to writers scheme and (b) writers in residence scheme during the last five years to applicants who were neither resident in Northern Ireland nor had any connection with Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Prisoners (Appeals)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to date in respect of convicted prisoners attempting to establish their innocence on appeal, when the Royal Ulster Constabulary cannot trace the original statements taken down by that force's detectives; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The safe guarding of police interview notes is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I understand that a force instruction, which came into effect in September 1992, directed that notes of interviews with terrorist suspects were to be made in booklets, electronically date and time stamped upon issue and following completion of the interview. The instruction also introduced additional measures to safeguard the long-term storage and security of those interview notes.

  General Medical Practices
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many general medical practices there are in Northern Ireland; and how many operate from(a) publicly-owned health centres and (b) privately-owned premises.

  Mr. Ancram
  At 1 July 1993, there were 355 general medical practices in Northern Ireland, of which 177 were operating from health centres and 178 from private premises.
  576

  Special Waste
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of(a) hydrocarbons and their oxygen, nitrogen and/or sulphur compounds, (b) inorganic cyanides, (c) inorganic halogen-containing compounds, (d) inorganic sulphur-containing compounds, (e) laboratory chemicals, (f) lead compounds, (g) mercury compounds, (h) nickel and nickel compounds, (i) organic halogen compounds, excluding inert polymeric material and (j) peroxides, chlorates and azides;

  (2) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) acids and alkalis, (b) antimony and antimony compounds, (c) arsenic compounds, (d) asbestos (all chemical forms), (e) barium compounds, (f) beryllium and beryllium compounds, (g) biocides and phytopharmaceutical substances, (h) boron compounds, (i) cadmium and cadmium compounds, (j) copper compounds, (k) heterocyclic organic compounds containing oxygen, nitrogen and/or sulphur and (l) hexavalent chromium compounds;

  (3) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) solvents-S halogen/mixed, (b) mineral oil sludges, (c) contaminated industrial waste, (d) empty contaminated drums, (e) pressurised cylinders/ aerosols, (f) contaminated soil, (g) mixed laboratory chemicals, (h) biocides-solid, (i) biocides-liquid, (j) biocides-aqueous diluted, (k) resins-organic and (j) filter material-organic:

  (4) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) solid metal bearing, (b) solid inorganic, (c) solid CN, (d) solid organic, (e) solid asbestos, (f) filter material-inorganic, (g) acid metal bearing, (h) acid-inorganic, (i) acid-organic, (j) alkalis metal bearing, (k) alkalis-inorganic, (l) alkalis-organic and (m) aqueous cyanide;

  (5) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste arising (a) within the county and deposited within the county, (b) within the county and exported out of the county and (c) outside the county and deposited within the county;

  (6) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) pharmaceutical and veterinary compounds, (b) phosphorus and its compounds, (c) selenium and selenium compounds, (d) silver compounds, (e) tarry materials from refining and tar residues from distilling, (f) tellurium and tellurium compounds, (g) thallium and thallium compounds, (h) vanadium compounds and (i) zinc compounds;

  (7) if he will lisp, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste arisings and deposits;

  (8) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) pharmaceutical waste, (b) mixed organics in drums, (c) metal compounds, (d) non-toxic metal compounds, (e) metals-elements, (f) metal oxides, (g) inorganic compounds, (h) other inorganic material, (i) organic compounds, (j) polymeric

  577
  material and precursors, (k) fuels, oils and greases, (l) fine chemicals and biocides, (m) miscellaneous chemicals waste, (n) filter materials and sludges, (o) miscellaneous waste and (q) construction waste;

  (9) if he will list, by year for the last five years, and by county, the number of tonnes of special waste production in the waste categories of (a) neutral metal bearing, (b) neutral-inorganic, (c) neutral-organic, (d) neutral-oily (one to 15 per cent.), (e) mineral oil and <20 per cent. others, (f) mineral oil and > 20 per cent. others, (g) oil + > 20 per cent. water <85 per cent., (h) grease/fat/wax/ vegetable oil, (i) tars/phenols, (j) solvents-non halogen, (k) solvents-halogenated, (l) solvents-mixed (including water) and (m) solvents-S non halogen.

  Mr. Atkins
  Special wastes are defined in the Pollution Control (Special Waste) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1981. Under the Regulations, a producer of such waste, before it is removed from his premises, is required to complete a consignment note which contains details of the composition and quantity of the waste. Copies of these notes and the details they contain are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Midwives
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many whole time equivalent midwives there are at each incremental point of each pay scale.

  Mr. Ancram
  I will write to the hon. Member once the information has been collated.

  RUC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the result of the review carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary into its guidelines concerning informants and agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Consideration of the relevant issues is continuing.

  Community Services
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the involvement of local authorities in Northern Ireland in community care and other community services.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]Northern Ireland's four health and social services boards, through their community-based units of management, are responsible for the provision of community care services and other health and social care given outside hospital.

  Local authorities in Northern Ireland have no responsibility for community care.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the 578
  suggested proposals to create community trusts in Northern Ireland; and what duties they will be responsible for.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The Government regard health and social services trusts as the best way of delivering health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. My noble Friend Lord Arran has already approved 10 applications for trust status, including the four community units of management in the Eastern board area. These community units will, subject to the passage of further legislation by Parliament, become fully operational as trusts on I April 1994. A proposal for further legislation was published on 17 June. This amending legislation will enable trusts providing community services to discharge certain statutory functions which are at present restricted to boards. In bringing this forward our objectives are to enable as many units as possible to take advantage of the significant benefits that trust status offers.

  Units of management which are approved as trusts continue to be responsible for the full range of services they already provide, thus preserving the integrated nature of the services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations have taken place with social workers, doctors and other interested people in Northern Ireland on the future care of the mentally ill, the handicapped and the disabled with the introduction of the new community care system; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 12 July 1993]: The Department of Health and Social Services has consulted widely on the Government's proposals for community care contained in the 1990 policy paper "People First" and on specific aspects of the new community care arrangements which came into operation on 1 April 1993.

  A comprehensive information strategy, incorporating consultative papers and booklets for advisors, clients, carers, home owners and general practitioners was implemented in advance of the new arrangements and culminated in a major community care conference for Northern Ireland on 15 March 1993 attended by representatives of the voluntary, private and statutory sectors.

  In addition, health and social services boards and their community-based units of management have consulted with clinicians, social services and other professional staff, providers and users in their areas in developing the new community care systems. Boards are expected to continue to consult regularly with interested parties in bringing forward proposals for development of services and the purchasing of care. The Department will be monitoring the effectiveness of the consultation undertaken by boards.

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.

Treasury Panel of Independent Forecasters
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What benefit they have derived from the advice of the Treasury panel of independent forecasters and to what extent the advice received has been unanimous.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government give careful consideration to the reports by the panel of independent forecasters in framing their own view of economic prospects. Not surprisingly, panel reports embrace a range of views, though areas of common ground emerge.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, what a marvellous dollop of bromide that Answer was! Will my noble friend encourage those wise men to ask themselves why our currency has declined over the past 30 years to a point where, measured in terms of the deutschmark, it is worth less than a quarter of what it was previously? Is my noble friend aware of the fact that one of the wise men made reference to the possible need of something much more drastic? It would have been very interesting to know what he had in mind.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend was pleased with the very carefully constructed Answer which was intended to be helpful to him. I shall certainly pass on what my noble friend has said to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real surprise would have been if seven economists agreed on almost anything? In fact, in the document they agreed on one essential point; namely, that £50 billion of borrowing this year was far too high. Can the Minister clarify the Government's position on that? The Prime Minister has said that 70 per cent. of the borrowing requirement is cyclical —that is to say, it will end when the recession ends, although yesterday the Chief Secretary seemed to dispute that. Therefore, as the Government have always said that they seek to balance the budget over the medium term, will the Minister make clear what their genuine position is now as regards the borrowing requirement and whether they are in favour of one or the other?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will know from personal experience
232
what it is like to have forecasters. He will recall the number of times that forecasts were made during his reign as Chief Secretary and the number of times that they were wrong, which gives us all cause for considerable scepticism about forecasts even today. As regards the deficit to which the noble Lord referred, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister qualified the figure that he suggested. He said that it was "about" because one cannot be precise on these matters. That remains the opinion of the Government.
Lord Peston: My Lords, has the noble Earl looked at the summary of forecasts which the seven economists have put forward? For example, has he noticed that for next year the highest forecast for the growth of GDP is 3.2 per cent. and the lowest 1.3 per cent., leaving a gap of two-and-a-half times; for the inflation rate 4.8 per cent. against 1.0 per cent., which is 4.8 times; the PSBR is £43 billion against a minimum of £22 billion which is nearly twice the maximum as opposed to the minimum? Can the noble Earl tell us what "careful consideration" means when it comes to looking at those figures? Would not the Government be better off if they got some entrails and looked at them? It would at least be cheaper compared with the cost of these people.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord will know only too well as an economist himself that people have different views on various matters. Consideration was given to all views. What is more important than the forecast is the result. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the fact that inflation has come down.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, reverting to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was there not a remark made about 65 years ago —although I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, on this—that whenever seven economists are gathered together there will be at least eight opinions and two of them will belong to Maynard Keynes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, indeed. I believe that many will be surprised that there are as few as eight opinions.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not the appointment of this panel a clever Treasury ploy in order to take the heat off the Treasury for having made so many fatal forecasts in the past? Is it not likely that the economists themselves will make equally unenviable forecasts and thus restore the Treasury to the position which in its own view it has always held; namely, that it is always right under all circumstances?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the House will recall that the setting up of the panel was one of a number of measures which my right honourable friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer outlined in his Mansion House speech last year, including the monthly monetary report, the inflation report of the Bank of England, in addition to the work of the panel. It was to give greater information and transparency than before the panel was set up.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the forecasts would have been more or less accurate if they had been based on unemployment figures calculated according to the method prevalent in 1979? If the Minister does not know, will he make it his business to find out?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me advance notice of that question. I have found out the answer. The answer is that it would not have made any difference.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in the memoirs of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Lord Hesketh: Order!
Baroness Strange: My Lords, might not my noble friend consider using the services of a tea-leaf reader among some of his forecasters?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend, who probably has experience of these matters, would like to introduce me to a specialist, and then perhaps I could put the matter in more detail to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his memoirs a former Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the quality of the advice received from his economic forecasters, and said that if one asked them for a telephone number they would give an estimate? Does the Minister believe that the quality of advice has changed since the days of my noble friend Lord Healey?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, those of us who have been lucky enough to have served in the Treasury and to have received forecasts know that officials do the very best that they can.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the Government still believe in market forces? If they do, why do they need a panel of forecasters?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the reason is the one that I gave a moment ago to the noble Lord, Lord Annan; namely, that it is a matter of greater transparency. It is clear from the views of the panel, together with those of the Treasury, the range at which one is looking.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend be kind enough to convey to his right honourable friend the notion that the suspicion is dawning among the people of this country, who are really rather slow to come to terms with harsh facts, particularly when very clever men are involved, that the Treasury is usually wrong and the time is coming when they themselves should do something about it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that there is a world of difference between a forecast and hard facts. A forecast is a projection as to the future; a hard fact is that inflation came down last month, something which I am sure my noble friend will welcome.

Gibraltar Migrant Workers: Costs
2.46 p.m.
Lord Merrivaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are giving to the Government of Gibraltar to help reduce any problems involving migrant labour from Morocco.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we support the Government of Gibraltar in their attempts to find a solution to this difficult matter. We have offered advice on various aspects and have been involved in contacts with the Government of Morocco.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she agree that when Her Majesty's Government negotiated with the Moroccan Government over the arrival of Moroccan workers as a result of the withdrawal of Spanish labour, Her Majesty's Government then had a policy of providing financial support? Why not now? On its own the Gibraltar economy cannot possibly meet all the claims for assistance from Moroccan workers.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as the Chief Minister has made clear, Moroccans have received their full entitlement under Gibraltar law. There is no question of their being offered a refund of their payments. Examples from a recent analysis of payments made to Moroccans reveal that in one instance a man who died in 1977 had paid a total of £124.84 in contributions, and his widow has since received benefits totalling £31,734.12. Pensions earned under Gibraltar arrangements are paid to Moroccan workers via bank transfers upon their return to Morocco.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can my noble friend give any idea of the number of the migrant labour force in Gibraltar who have been affected by the closure of Her Majesty's dockyard there?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, several hundred people have been involved, not only as a result of the closure of the dockyard but also of the PSA, but only seven of them are liable for repatriation at the moment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that many Moroccan workers have been in Gibraltar for nearly 25 years, and that some of them are now being deported as a result of becoming unemployed merely because preference is given to EC nationals? Will she say how many have been deported in the past year and whether those who are threatened with deportation have any rights of appeal?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, on a recent visit representatives of the Department of Employment found no evidence that a "Gibraltarians first" policy was being implemented by the Employment and Training Board of Gibraltar, which is responsible for job replacements. Workers of any nationality who are legally resident have the right to the same facilities at the Employment and Training Board used by Gibraltarians. In all job applications the overriding

235
factor for the board is the wish of the employer. I am afraid that I did not catch the second question which the noble Baroness asked.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many Moroccan workers were deported last year? Do those threatened with deportation have a right of appeal? I should like an answer in particular to my last question.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, none was deported last year. There would be no question of an appeal because the agreement was reached between the Moroccan and Gibraltar governments. As regards repatriation, the trouble is that the Transport and General Workers Union has taken the passports of six of the seven workers who are faced with repatriation under the terms agreed by the Moroccan Government.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, bearing in mind that more than 300 Moroccan workers have been unemployed for more than six months, what assistance would Her Majesty's Government consider giving in the event of Article 41 of the 1976 EC Morocco Co-operation Agreement being applicable to Gibraltar in the field of social security? The agreement was not brought to the notice of the Gibraltar Government before it was entered into.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, employment and social security matters, which are at the crux of this issue, are the responsibility of the Government of Gibraltar. We support the approach of the Gibraltar Government. There was last year an agreement to begin talks on updating the EC Morocco Co-operation Agreement. The Commission has produced a draft which is currently under discussion. Obviously, I cannot go into details at this stage.

NHS Trusts: Salary Levels
2.52 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many posts have been created, and how many appointments made, as a result of the creation of NHS trusts; and at what cost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, a total of 1,948 people have been appointed as chairmen and non-executive directors of National Health Service trusts in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We estimate the cost of their remuneration in 1992–93 was about £9 million. Although many staff transferred from previously directly managed units, it is not possible to identify how many new posts are attributable to the creation of NHS trusts nor any additional cost involved
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Do the Government issue a yardstick as regards what shall be paid in remuneration to non-executive directors of the trusts? Are they free to award their own salaries, as was the case in Leeds where the directors awarded themselves
236
£55,000 a year? Is it not easy to realise the total which the Minister read out when people are giving themselves remunerations on such a scale?
Lord Henley: My Lords, those people are not giving themselves remuneration; that is decided by the chairmen and non-executive directors of the trusts. The pay levels of the non-executive directors are decided by the Secretary of State. As regards the issuing of guidance, it is entirely a matter for the trusts to decide what to pay individuals. It is for the trusts to decide within the bounds of their overall budgets the levels of pay necessary to attract exactly the right people. Obviously, guidance is available on pay levels in the rest of the National Health Service and they can take note of that as they see fit.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the most highly paid people in the National Health Service trusts are deciding their own salary scale? Is there not something wrong in that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had made clear that the executive members are being paid according to the decisions of the non-executive directors. The pay levels of the non-executive directors and chairmen of the trusts are decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, some London hospitals, irrespective of whether they are trusts, are facing serious problems of accommodation. Is the Minister prepared to examine the situation of Ealing Hospital if details are supplied? The hospital is doing its best but it has a serious problem.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I am sure that my ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health will take note of the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that before the recent introduction of the NHS reforms one could walk into an NHS hospital and find in the finance department 205 people none of whom had any financial qualifications or was paid properly? Does my noble friend further agree that if one wants people to run a hospital with a budget of £60 million one must have competent people with financial qualifications who are paid properly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend has greater experience of these matters than I and probably any other Member of this House. In agreeing with him I must point out that we believe that effective management of the vast amount of taxpayers' money going into the National Health Service is very important in terms of delivering the best possible service to as many people as possible.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if the Minister takes the view that those people running the finances of the opted-out hospitals should have financial qualifications, will he tell the House what financial qualifications the Chancellor of the Exchequer has?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that too is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall answer the point

237
which the noble Lord made by stressing that these hospitals have not opted out of the National Health Service. They are National Health Service trusts and remain fully a part of the NHS.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many years several of us served voluntarily and without payment in various ways in the NHS; as chairmen, members of boards and so forth? Is he also aware that we were delighted to act in that way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are grateful for the noble Lord's work during those years.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is general welcome for the announcement made earlier this week by the Secretary of State that she is establishing a working party to look into the reinforcement of public service values in the NHS? Perhaps that recognition reflects some of the anxieties which my noble friend raised in his Question. Is the Minister further aware that there is anxiety that among the members of the working group 19 out of 24 are salaried under the NHS and are therefore probably not as independent as they might be, and that the chairman, who comes from the private sector, has a background spent entirely in commercial business?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the members are independent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced at the NAHAT conference on 18th June that the task force had been established within the National Health Service management executive to examine aspects of corporate governance within the National Health Service. It will report in due course and we shall then examine its proposals.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a report in today's Independent which states that Mr. Alan Milburn, MP for Darlington, recently received a letter from the deputy director of the National Audit Commission stating that the spending of £40 million, the figure which the Minister gave, cannot be itemised? Is that not a funny way of running a concern which has as much money to throw about as the National Health Service?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the figure I gave was £9 million for the costs of the remuneration of the chairmen and non-executive directors of the trusts. I said that on a national basis it was not possible to identify the costs of other posts.

Degree Courses: Funding and Length
2.59 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the vires for the proposal in Higher Education Funding Council for England Circular 19/93 to use the funding scheme to influence the length of degree courses.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Higher Education Funding Council for England has powers to fund universities and colleges under Section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 subject to such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. The proposals in the council's circular 19/93 are designed to secure value for money and to enable wide participation in higher education.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she remember that when we were discussing Clause 68 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the House deleted a power to link grants to the duration of courses as a result of an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff? Does she agree that there is a connection between the duration of courses and their standard, and that the qualifications of the Department for Education to decide the standard of degree courses are not obvious?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I remember the occasion very well, as I imagine do many of your Lordships. I remind the noble Earl of something that he said then:
"I admit that it is at all times proper for the Secretary of State to consult, to request, to ask and to persuade".
But what was important on that occasion was that it was the will of the House, and subsequently the will of Parliament, that the Secretary of State should not have the right to override the will of academics in higher education.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, will the Minister tell me the Government's current position as regards the length of the degree in architecture which they are willing to fund?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council and the individual institutions. My right honourable friend and the Government have no power in those matters.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there has been a problem as regards equivalent degrees between British and European universities? That problem will be exacerbated if degree courses are shortened. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be a reduction in standards? Shorter means worse. Will she assure us that that is not the Government's intention?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about quality. It is absolutely essential that quality does not suffer in the reforms taking place in higher education. Our higher education provides for a higher proportion of the population and it is only right that what is on offer should become more diverse and reflect the differing needs of students.
United Kingdom degrees are reflected worldwide and we hope that that will continue. Where we lag behind our international competitors—and this is where the noble Lord is wrong—is in not providing

239
sufficient shorter vocational diploma courses which help to provide highly skilled technical personnel for industry. Circular 19/93 will help in that respect.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness quoted correctly what I said in 1992. But does she agree that the use of the funding lever is closer to dictation than to consultation? When she invokes value for money, will she please consider the value as well as the money?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I disagree profoundly with the noble Earl. It is not closer to dictation. This House and the will of Parliament have made it absolutely clear that my right honourable friend and the Government have no powers in that respect. They can seek and request that the Higher Education Funding Council has a view to value for money, but at the end of the day the Higher Education Funding Council and the individual institutions have the freedom to decide how value for money will be achieved.

Business
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I again remind your Lordships briefly of the rules which apply to our proceedings on Report. The rules are set out in full on pages 109–10 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. I recognise that our proceedings today may be a trifle unusual as we have only one amendment before us to debate. But speeches should be relevant to that amendment; and I remind your Lordships that this is Report stage and that arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (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.
Lord Blake Lord Blake moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Referendum
.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) this Act shall take effect on such day as may be specified by order which shall also provide for the holding of a consultative referendum before that day to establish whether or not the majority of those voting supports the Treaty on European Union.
(2) No order under subsection (1) above shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred in carrying the order into effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord
240
Stoddart of Swindon, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire.
This is the 11th day on which your Lordships have debated the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which, for the sake of brevity, I shall, with permission of your Lordships, call the Maastricht Bill. I shall endeavour to be brief and not to try the already somewhat frayed patience of your Lordships more than I can possibly help.
This is a different kind of amendment from those amendments with which we have previously been concerned. It does not seek to change items in the treaty or to probe for further information. In plain language, it seeks to ensure that the Maastricht Treaty takes effect only after a referendum has been established as to whether or not the people want it. By "the people" I mean in this context the majority of those who vote.
A referendum is not a regular feature of our constitution nor, I am bound to say, would I wish it to be so. But it is certainly not an unconstitutional matter. There have been three occasions or possibly four, depending upon how one counts, in the past 20 years when the Government have had recourse to a referendum. It was used as regards the Northern Irish Frontier in 1973, the renegotiated terms of cur entry into the European Economic Community in 1975, and the Scottish and Welsh devolution questions in 1979.
It was mooted but never carried by Balfour in 1911 with regard to the Parliament Act crisis. a was mooted, although not carried or agreed, by Baldwin in 1930 and by Winston Churchill in 1945 on the question of the continuation of a national government. Therefore, it is not an unknown, unusual, odd or eccentric method of consulting and discovering what democracy really thinks.
The common feature of the referenda which took place was that they concerned constitutional questions. They concerned questions of governance, of how we are to be governed and under what conditions.
I do not propose to discuss the merits of the Maastricht Treaty and the Bill. I am president of a body called the Campaign for a British Referendum, which is neutral on that point. Some, like myself, would probably, if there were a referendum, vote on balance and hesitantly for what has been described as this "ramshackle treaty". But I should do that only on the grounds that most choices in politics are choices between evils. Others would vote against Maastricht. However, what unites us is the belief that the British people have right to be consulted so that they can endorse or otherwise a measure which irrevocably and irreversibly in some respects affects their governance.
Some noble Lords have disputed the constitutional importance of the Maastricht Bill. It was described by one noble and learned Lord—I am afraid I cannot remember who—as a useful little treaty. Another described it as dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s of previous measures, especially with reference to the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act.
I suppose that the dispute boils down to a rather subjective view of what are the constitutional

241
implications of the treaty. But it seems to me that a measure which greatly extends the powers of the Commission, which provides for over 100 new occasions when decisions can be taken by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, which moves us from membership of the European Economic Community into the European Community—a political entity—and which greatly extends the powers of the Community in respect of health, education, rail and road communications, environmental control and a host of other matters must surely be rather more than dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s. It is rather hard to see what all the fuss has been about in both Houses of Parliament, with the enormously lengthy discussions that have taken place, if it just a "useful little treaty" which dots "i"s and crosses "t"s. I cannot believe that it can plausibly be argued that there are no serious constitutional implications in Maastricht.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, maintains that the implications are enormous. There may be other noble and learned Lords who would dispute that fact, but it is, at least, a question of some gravity. It is possible—and no doubt there are arguments for it—that we should accept changes in our sovereignty; that we should accept a diminution of the power of Parliament and a diminution of our independence. I would not argue that that is inconceivable or necessarily wrong; but I do argue that the people should have a say in the matter. So far, they have not.
There was no real choice in the general election of April last year. All three parties put Maastricht in their manifestos. It was put in smallish print and without a great deal of emphasis but, nevertheless, it was included. However, as noble Lords will remember, it hardly figured at all in the discussions which took place during the general election. In fact, the election turned on a hotch-potch of other issues that I shall not bother to enumerate.
It is perfectly true that, constitutionally speaking, Parliament is sovereign and can pass—indeed, it has passed—important constitutional changes without reference to the people. But a right to do something is not an obligation to do it. There is such a thing as a discretionary power. That discretion has been, as I said, exercised earlier on three or four quite important occasions which concerned constitutional questions. I believe that there is a strong moral case here. I fully concede that it is not a legal case, but there is an overwhelming, or at any rate strong, moral case for a referendum on Maastricht in all the circumstances.
Perhaps I may now deal with some of the objections raised against a referendum. The first is that your Lordships as Members of an unelected House have no right to pass an amendment that has been rejected by the elected House. The House is fully entitled to do so. I read with pleasure part of an article in today's Daily Telegraph by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Of course, I did not agree with his conclusion—namely, that your Lordships should reject the amendment; otherwise I would not be standing here—but I strongly endorse the point he
242
made that the House of Lords is entitled to do anything which it is not forbidden to do in the two relevant Acts under which we operate. Therefore, I hope that we shall not get bogged down this afternoon in a series of arguments about the powers of your Lordships' House and about the usages, conventions, past precedents, and so on. That is an almost unlimited bog in which to fall.
Secondly, it will be argued that the whole subject is too complicated for the electorate to understand and that it would be impossible to frame intelligible questions so that they could be understood. I find that rather hard to accept. If the Irish, the Danes and the French have conducted referendums on the subject without, apparently, incurring any complaints that the matter was unintelligible or impossible to understand, I find it hard to believe that the British, unlike their continental partners, are incapable of doing so.
In fact, one could perfectly well have a relatively simple question put in a referendum. The following was the question that was put in the French referendum:
"Do you approve of the draft law put to the French people by the President of the Republic ratifying the Treaty on European Union?"
Well, something in similar but suitably altered language could perfectly well be put in a referendum in Britain. Moreover, if it is a fact that the British people are ignorant about such issues, it is to some extent the fault of the Government. There has been extraordinarily little attempt on the part of the Front Benches of both sides in politics in this House and elsewhere—notably in another place—to explain in simple, or even in roughly approximate, language what the issues are about. If we had a referendum, the Government and the supporters of Maastricht, whether or not they are in the Government, would be obliged in the course of such a campaign to explain what it was all about—or, at any rate, to make a shot at doing so. That was done in the referendum campaign in 1975. Therefore, I do not believe that it is an insuperable difficulty.
Then there is the objection which I am sure will be raised; namely, that it is futile to pass the amendment because, when the Bill returns to another place, it will simply be slung out under the powers of the Parliament Act without any attempt at serious discussion and will then be thrown back to us. I do not take such a gloomy and pessimistic view of the outlook, attitude and temperament of Members in another place. If the amendment were to be passed, I believe that they would seriously consider it. I am not saying that they would reconsider it to the extent of actually reversing their verdict, but they would consider it. If we do not give them the chance to reconsider, how are we to know what their reaction would be? Although I am certain that that argument will be powerfully pursued in the course of this afternoon's debate, it is not a good argument and would certainly not induce me to change my views about pushing for a referendum.
There is a final objection that might be raised. Here I address particularly my noble friends on these Benches. It has been put about, assiduously in some quarters, that if a referendum amendment were to be

243
passed; if the Government allowed a referendum to take place; and if that referendum went against Maastricht—noble Lords will notice that there are quite a number of "ifs" involved—then the Government would be obliged to resign. I think that that is total rubbish. I am addressing my noble friends specifically because, of course, I quite understand that noble Lords on the other side of the House would be only too pleased ill that did happen. However, I must disappoint them. In my estimate, no such thing would occur.
I believe that it is a fairly well-attested and valuable constitutional doctrine that a government resign only when they have lost the confidence of another place, or have lost a general election, which, in effect, comes to the same thing. I do not gain the impression that the Government would voluntarily resign at this moment. I do not think this Cabinet is exactly full of what one might call resigning types. Again I must disappoint the Front Bench opposite as I think the likelihood of a government resigning and thus precipitating a general election because they had lost a referendum on Maastricht is so remote as to be absolutely inconceivable.
I only have a few more points to make. I have given some of the reasons for a referendum and tried to answer some of the objections. I believe that at the end of the day the moral authority of Parliament stems from the people. I shall not hesitate to quote the great 17th century political philosopher, John Locke, the author of that bible of constitutionalism, his famous Second Treatise of Government. I am sure that text is familiar to your Lordships. John Locke wrote:
"Parliament cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands, for it being but a delegated power from the people. They who have it cannot pass it to others".
Parliament can consult the people, and morally should consult the people, when it seeks to pass on these powers to others. As I said earlier, in 1911 the cry went up over the Parliament Act crisis—the peers against the people. This is a golden chance to show that the peers are in favour of the people. I beg to move.
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, it may be helpful if at this stage I were to assist the House by setting out the Government's attitude towards the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Blake. The amendment has given rise to a certain amount of discussion outside the Chamber of your Lordships' House. It perhaps comes as something of a relief for your Lordships now to have the opportunity to consider the issues to which it gives rise. The purpose of the amendment can be simply stated: it requires the holding of a consultative referendum on the Maastricht Treaty before the Act could enter into force and before the UK could ratify the treaty.
The Government's primary objection to a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty can be put equally simply: the United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy. The Members of another place are elected to represent the people and to take decisions on their behalf. We in this House also have our role to play. Noble Lords calling for a referendum have made
244
much of their desire to defend Parliament's sovereignty. But by calling for a referendum they are in fact undermining this sovereignty. They are advocating that Parliament abdicates its responsibility to take a decision in this case. I believe it would be wrong to place our experience and judgment in baulk and to stand aside while the people decide. They have decided.
Some have argued that we should hold a referendum because there was no real choice at the previous general election on the question of the Maastricht Treaty. However, the Government's proposals on Europe were spelt out clearly in the months before the election and were fully debated in both Houses of Parliament. The Conservative Party manifesto explained the key commitments that ratification of the Maastricht Treaty implied. The electorate could not have had any doubt at all about the position when in April 1992 it endorsed that manifesto.
Moreover, it is not sufficient to argue that a referendum is justified because of the consensus that exists between major parties on the issue of Europe. There is certainly no case for holding a referendum on all major issues on which political parties agree. Article R of the Maastricht Treaty sets out the requirements for ratification. Like its predecessors in 1957 and 1985, it states that all member states shall ratify the treaty,
"in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
This recognises that each country has its own constitution and its own way of dealing with such matters. Two countries in the EC—Denmark and Ireland—were constitutionally obliged to hold a referendum. Others did not have this option. For example, I understand that Italy is constitutionally prevented from holding a referendum on an international treaty. Most countries, like the United Kingdom, have followed the parliamentary route according to their established practices. That is as it should be.
It has been suggested that the Maastricht Treaty represents a major constitutional change in the United Kingdom and that that justifies exceptional recourse to a referendum. I do not accept that argument. I can do no better than repeat what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said during his thoughtful and weighty contribution to our Second Reading debate:
"the Maastricht Treaty is a logical step from the Single European Act … it is not a revision in a constitutional sense".
He continued:
"the new express powers given to the European Community by the Maastricht Treaty are definitions and codifications of powers which the Council has been exercising under the general articles (Articles 235 and 100A) already".—[official Report, 7/6/93; col. 576.]
A major change in the constitution of this country took place with our accession to the European Communities under the 1972 Act. I refer again to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. He reminded your Lordships that it was well established when we entered the Community in

245
1973 that European law had a direct effect in each of the member states and that if a conflict arose European law took precedence over statute law.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made clear during his Second Reading speech, the subsequent Community treaties and the Maastricht Treaty build on the framework established by the 1972 Act but do not fundamentally change the position. If there ever were a case for a referendum, therefore, it was before we joined the Community. Once we were in, the case—such as it was —fell away.
In 1975 the vast majority of the Conservative Party argued strongly against a referendum and voted against one. The 1975 referendum is cited as a precedent for a further one on Maastricht. Yet whatever the motives of those who in 1975 advocated a referendum, the logic of the 1975 vote—in so far as it could be justified—was that it would settle the membership issue once and for all, and not that it should establish a precedent for a series of further referenda to confirm the basic decision.
No referendum was held on the Single European Act, which significantly expanded the use of qualified majority voting—particularly Article 100A—and neither was there a great demand for one. Even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, whose consistency of view on these matters is well known to your Lordships, at that time argued for a speakers' conference. In contrast, the Maastricht Treaty keeps the largest new areas of co-operation on an intergovernmental basis, accountable to national parliaments. There are also practical reasons that militate against the holding of a referendum. They are the complexity of the treaty; the difficulty of framing a meaningful question; and the risk—which was amply demonstrated in the French referendum for example—that whatever the question, people will choose to answer a different one.
However, the real objection to a referendum is that the people have spoken through their Parliament. Before the British Prime Minister went to Maastricht he sought and obtained the approval of Parliament for his negotiating strategy. On his return he again obtained that approval, both of another place and of your Lordships' House, for the outcome of the negotiations. Since then, his mandate was renewed at a general election at which anti-Maastricht candidates barely recorded a vote. The other place has spent well over 200 hours considering the Bill. When it came to vote on the referendum question, it rejected the idea by an overwhelming majority of 239 votes.
Of course, and here I agree with my noble friend, it is perfectly within the rules and conventions of this House for your Lordships to seek to ask the other place to think again on the issue. But we should consider for a moment the practical consequences of doing so. Is it within the realms of reality to suppose that another place will reverse a decision taken by such a majority? If it is not reasonable to suppose such an outcome, can it be sensible to ask the other place to think again?
Well over 100 of your Lordships spoke in the Second Reading debate. We have also had six days in
246
Committee, and this is the third day of the Report stage. It is right that your Lordships should have expressed strong views and should have put queries and anxieties to the Government and had them answered. My noble friend Lady Chalker, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and many others of my noble friends have given good and clear responses to the anxieties of those in your Lordships' House who have raised all manner of issues, not just on Maastricht but also on the more fundamental question of whether we should have joined the Community in the first place. I hope and believe that the considered responses given have helped to clear up misconceptions and allay anxieties.
It would be wrong of us to say now that this lengthy debate has been inadequate or irrelevant and that after all this time and effort Parliament will not decide the issue and that instead we shall put it to the people. That would be a dereliction of our duty. It would do the greatest possible damage to Britain's reputation if this country were to take such a step 18 months after we signed the treaty, after an extraordinarily extended parliamentary process which has demonstrated overwhelming support for the treaty from all major parties, and after the Government have given their word that we will complete ratification during this Session. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, when he introduced the amendment, as I always do. This is an important amendment and the noble Lord made an important speech. He put up the most attractive argument for a referendum that I have heard in many a long month. If I could be certain that his three "ifs" could be satisfied and that if a referendum were held and the Government were to go—if I could have those assurances in the tablets of stone which my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart have been demanding from the Government on other issues in relation to Maastricht—it would be very tempting indeed. However, I regret that I shall not receive the assurances. I do not believe that it will happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, enunciated what was almost a constitutional principle, namely, that where an Act or a treaty involves changes to the British constitution and the way in which we are governed in this country it should be put to a referendum. That would apply not solely in relation to Maastricht but as a general principle. It is an argument which one could no doubt debate. I merely observe, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed out, that that was not done in relation to the Single European Act. Those of your Lordships who will urge us today to vote in favour of a referendum on Maastricht but who nevertheless were opposed to a referendum on the Single European Act—not only against it but perhaps in some cases in a position to prevent it—are under a duty to explain to the House precisely why that change of mind has come about.
This is almost the final parliamentary step in the consideration of this Bill and this treaty. It has been a

247
long road. We should not forget that the treaty was negotiated as long ago as December 1991, so the gestation period for the Bill has been lengthy. Parliamentary consideration started towards the end of last year. We on these Benches took the view that that was an inordinate and unreasonable delay on the part of the Government. The process has continued for most of this year. As the noble Lord, the Leader of the House pointed out, there were two days on the Second Reading in this House and six days in Committee. There have been three days on the Report stage. Four hundred amendments were put down for the Committee stage in your Lordships' House. In the other place there were 204 hours of debate, and 600 amendments were put down during the 23 days in Committee.
Whatever one says about the Bill it would be very difficult to argue that there has not been proper parliamentary scrutiny of this piece of legislation. Not only that, but everybody has had the opportunity to say what they want in relation to the Bill and the treaty. They have taken that opportunity. They have seized it with both hands. They have had their say—in some cases, often.
Fundamental to our approach to the issue today is the fact that the Government chose to take the parliamentary route towards ratification. It is possible to argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake did, that they should have proceeded by way of a referendum as an alternative to parliamentary consideration because the treaty is of such constitutional significance. However, one should also remember that in the weeks immediately after the treaty was negotiated little was heard about a referendum. As I recall, there was a touch of triumphalism about the great success which the Government had obtained at Maastricht.
So we proceeded by the normal route to ratification. I use the word "normal" in this context because the Single European Act also proceeded by the parliamentary route towards ratification. In that sense what has happened in relation to the Maastricht Treaty is at least as normal as the procedure followed with the Single European Act. Not only that. It is arguable—and I would argue—that in relation to the Maastricht Bill there has been infinitely more scope for parliamentary discussion than there was in relation to the Single European Act.
I nearly uttered the immortal sentence, "We have now reached the point that we have now reached". I suppose that in a sense that is absolutely true. But we have now reached the final stage in the completion of the parliamentary process. I believe that the only issue before your Lordships in relation to the proposed new clause is whether we are satisfied that the parliamentary process has in some way been unsatisfactory or lacking. Unless we are satisfied that that process has been unsatisfactory or lacking then I suggest to the House that it would be very difficult to vote in favour of holding a referendum.
Against that background there are three strong arguments against holding a referendum. First, it is far too late; secondly, it is constitutionally unwise; thirdly, it would be an extraordinarily divisive and
248
confused process. It would keep the issue alive for perhaps another nine months, and in the end it might reach no conclusion.
I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to say a word about each of those three arguments. I turn first to the point that it is too late. If it was valid, the referendum option should have been exercised a very long time ago. It is now far too late. Let us consider what would happen if the new clause were to be accepted. It would need a Bill. When would the Bill pass through Parliament? I venture to suggest that it would not be capable of being passed through Parliament until approximately November. That referendum Bill would, in turn, like the Maastricht Bill and other Bills of such significance, require intense parliamentary scrutiny, particularly on the terms of the question that would have to be put to the British electorate. I do not suggest that it would demand, or receive, the sort of parliamentary scrutiny which the Maastricht Bill itself has received, but it would be bound to attract a certain amount of interest in both Houses. That would take us to around November. It would be very difficult to have a referendum in the run-up to Christmas. Therefore, for practical purposes, we are talking about a referendum being organised and taking place in approxirnately February of next year, two and a quarter years after the treaty was negotiated. That is far too long, my Lords.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will speak in this debate. I believe that he is the only person in this House who has organised and run a referendum. I see that the noble Lord is here, and I think that he is nodding. I look forward to hearing what he has to tell us about the possibilities of having a referendum. I believe that it will be somewhat instructive.
There has to be a determination of the affair. It is in no one's interests, either ours or our Community partners, that the matter should now be indefinitely prolonged. My firm conclusion therefore is that the time for a referendum has long since passed.
Secondly, perhaps I may say a word about the constitutional position. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Blake, says. Of course this House has the right to try to impose a referendum on the ratification process. But is it wise? I ask your Lordships to consider the wisdom of such an affair. As the Leader of the House told us, the issue was determined by the elected House with a majority of some 240. If that were allowed to be overturned by this unelected House, it would produce—if I may use the phrase that I used at Second Reading—constitutional friction of a high order. But it may go even further than that. If, moreover, it was overturned by the votes of noble Lords who are not perhaps the most regular attenders at your Lordships' proceedings, I believe that that friction would be intensified. The spectacle of a large number of peers appearing for the specific purpose of overturning the will of the elected House in the name of the people's democracy I fear would highlight in a particularly pointed way the difficulties that this House faces in a constitutional process.
I do not agree with the constitutional entitlement to do it, but I profoundly disagree with the political

249
wisdom of provoking such a clash with the other House. I am bound to say, too, that I am a little surprised that some noble Lords are prepared to contemplate such a result. Some, indeed, have held very high office in another place, and have regarded themselves, and have rightly been so regarded, as the champions of the rights and liberties of the House of Commons.
Thirdly, let me say a word about divisiveness. For all the "trust the people" rhetoric that we have heard in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to confine the issue on a referendum to Maastricht itself. It could well turn into a vote of confidence in the Government. If only that could be accepted, if I could have the assurances I require, that might not be such a bad prospect. But the result would therefore be an uncertain indication, putting it at its highest, of the real state of public opinion in this country, as it was in Ireland, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blake. The abortion issue was very much tied up with that referendum. In France it became a vote of confidence in the Mitterrand Government.
Therefore I have real doubts about the determining nature of a referendum, perhaps particularly so in this instance. Fundamentally my objection to the proposal is the practical one: that having gone through this detailed process of parliamentary scrutiny and examination, it is much too late now suddenly to change direction.
It is precisely because it is too late to change direction that the proposal is supported by so many of those who are opposed to the treaty itself, and not only to this treaty but even to the Treaty of Rome. Having failed to get their way either in this Chamber or in another place, having said all that they wish to say, and having said it persistently, at this late stage there is the proposal to postpone ratification yet again pending a referendum. It is clearly a wrecking device. I believe that it is designed to be a wrecking device. Therefore with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, I cannot understand how anyone in favour of the treaty can at the same time be in favour of the proposal to delay ratification further.
Finally, after the detailed, almost unprecedented, parliamentary scrutiny that the Bill has had, one would perhaps have expected that those so jealous of Parliament's sovereignty would have accepted that in this case Parliament has done its job. Rarely can a Bill have been so dissected, analysed and picked over. It is only if one can be satisfied that Parliament has somehow failed to do its job properly that one can turn to the alternative route to ratification; namely, a referendum. Whether Parliament has done its job properly is a different question from whether one likes the result of Parliament doing its job. I do not like the result, for example, on the social chapter. But I am satisfied that the Bill has been given full and proper consideration by both Houses of Parliament in accordance with their respective rules of procedure. If that is so, it is time that the talking stopped. For those reasons, we on these Benches will vote against the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill.
3.48 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, the debate has been much trailed in the media, and with good cause. On Monday last, The Times in its first editorial reminded the nation that the treaty is Britain's greatest constitutional upheaval since the Act of Union and it should be subject to careful consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, Leader of the Labour Party in this House, seemed to be tetchy about how long we have taken in considering the Bill. He was tetchy last night; and I hope that he is better today. The Maastricht issue is bound to be involved in the argument for the referendum. That is why I did not like the Government Chief Whip adding to the three line Whip which he has issued by standing there to warn us to be careful to keep within the rules.
We are discussing the biggest issue that any of us will ever have a chance to discuss: the future constitution of our own country. There has been complaint that noble Lords have had to stay until 11 o'clock. I make a quick confession. I have not done so, but I have been present when I thought that there would be a vote.
At the time of the general election, the text of the Treaty of Maastricht had not even been published. Therefore no one has a right to say in this House that the British people knew what they were voting for so far as concerns Maastricht. They had never set eyes on the treaty. Since then we have had a most distinguished luminary of the Government agreeing that he had not read the treaty either; and he is now holding high office within the Administration.
I like the reserve of the noble Lord, Lord Blake. He does not suffer from a Celtic temperament. He pursued his argument quietly but highly effectively. He said that he would quote Locke. It is a quotation worth underlining. Locke made it clear, and it has been accepted by both Houses since he wrote it, that, we in Parliament cannot transfer the power of making laws of this land to any other land. Who would believe that a day could come when noble Lords would be considering giving to another nation the right to make legislation touching the life of our people socially, economically and with regard to foreign affairs?
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, shakes her head, but I shall not be intimidated. She knows that Maastricht is a gateway—that is what it is—through which the things of which I speak can come about. It is because of that that I also believe that since the Maastricht Treaty seeks to transfer the powers of our Parliament only the people can decide the issue. No one is given a mandate by the British people to sell their heritage to reach an economic agreement; to be willing to sell our political sovereignty. At the end of the day, that is the issue involved.
Edmund Burke has been quoted many times during the debate. He said that Members of another place were not delegates but representatives. He was lucky, he lived before the era of the three-line Whip. Edmund Burke was not told by his Front Bench: "You must, as a matter of loyalty, stand behind us and cast your vote in the Lobby". That 18th century Parliament was guided by individual judgments; conscience was

251
allowed to prevail. It was, therefore, a Parliament that had a special significance for those not only in the other place but in here.
The simple issue today that we have to resolve is whether we ask—not tell—another place to give further thought to something which is of long-term significance. This House would not be as crowded as it is today if it were not for the essential importance of the issues at stake. Because of that we have every right to say, and the Labour Party should have been the first to do so: "Think again before you take irrevocable action which will bind future generations and affect those who are not yet born but who will belong to this country".
I read in the media today, in a speech being trailed, that it will be said that a crisis will arise if we support the referendum—a crisis for Her Majesty's Government and would cause them embarrassment. But the Government are used to that. As for causing a crisis, when your Lordships' House decided, by a large majority, to throw back in the face of the Government the War Crimes Bill, although the Bill had had a large majority in the other place, no one talked about a crisis then. Not at all.
This House has its own responsibilities and I hope that those who have made special efforts to come here, who have left their arduous duties behind, will not feel that the three-line Whip has any moral obligation on them. That applies to both sides of the House. What a unique situation it is that, with agreement between the Leaders, they are so nervous that they require a three-line Whip! There is a lot of fear on those Benches, and Jacques Delors could not have had more enthusiastic support than he has had from the Leader of the Opposition. But a three-line Whip in this House under these circumstances is unheard of. I thought I had left behind me in another place such arm-twisting, such promises, such persuasion, but I understand that the pressure has been considerable.
I ask your Lordships to believe that there is no crisis if we cast our vote in favour of the amendment. If, indeed, the French—who by a whisker agreed to Maastricht—had turned it down, it would not have been the end of the world; they would just have carried on with their economic union. The trade would have gone on all right, because they need us more than we need them, if the truth be known. Therefore, I believe that we should assert our sovereign right today and pass this amendment.
The main parties in this House are deeply divided. It is a silly pretence to say "we". The noble Lord ought to have said, "Those who agree with me on these Benches will vote with me". The same applies to the Opposition Benches. The main parties are divided and the people who are involved are not minor characters but people with knowledge of our parliamentary affairs.
The advantage of a referendum would be that the unease which is spreading across the land would be settled because people keep asking me, "What is it all about? I don't know what it's about". My answer is, "lf there were a referendum, they would have to tell you what it's all about". I believe that the informed British public would then make their views known.
252
People outside feel that they do not know what the issues are and I believe that a referendum where both sides could argue their case could do nothing but good for the future of our people.
Just outside this Chamber is the statue of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham—I can tell that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was trained in another place because he keeps interrupting. In the Central Lobby there is the statue of William Ewart Gladstone; in the Members' Lobby, Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George guard the entrance, with. Clement Attlee looking benignly on them both. I think of the great parliamentary giants of the past. They are silent reminders of the sacrifices that have been made through the centuries to keep the sovereign rights of the British Parliament. They were great names but they have gone.
I know that we are living in a different age, but there are some things that never change. The character of the British people is one of those things. That is why the politicians say no to a referendum. It is because they know the British people. There is a stubborn streak in our people. There is also a native common sense. They know when the tocsin sounds. They know when there is danger. The man who ploughs the field, and the man who works in the pit, the railway or the slate quarry has a native common sense and a sound instinct about great issues affecting this land.
The three-line Whip upsets me deeply. People do not feel free, and they should. Two things have impressed me about your Lordships' House ever since I came here. The first is the courtesy here. Hardly anyone is rude. If anyone is I say to myself, "Another one from down the road". The courtesy of this House is one of our precious assets. The second is independence. Independence is the greatest possession that your Lordships have. It also carries a great responsibility. Your Lordships are Free, unlike the mass of the British people, to register an opinion; or you can please the Chief Whip. I say to noble Lords in deep sincerity (like everyone else) that there is no monopoly of patriotism here. We all love Britain—the United Kingdom, I should say for the sake of the noble Lady—but, if we all love this country surely we should move cautiously. i ask the House—after all, it is not an offence to do so—to send this amendment back and say, "Think again". It is they, the elected representatives of the people, who will decide if there is to be a referendum. We should give them the opportunity to debate the issue.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, although normally and naturally I attach great importance to the established pattern of speaking of party leaders, I decided to give way to the noble Viscount for two reasons. First, I well understood that after the two very cogent speeches of the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, he might wish to try to stem the tide from the point of view of the amendment. Secondly, I deferred to him not so much as a former Speaker of the House of Commons, but because when I first became Home Secretary, unbelievable though it sounds now, he was my

253
Parliamentary Secretary—the most junior of my four Ministers. I thought it perhaps appropriate after 28 years to redress the balance for that.
The noble Viscount brings to our sometimes drab proceedings the more exciting tones of the great Welsh revivalist preachers of the 19th century who have now departed from the Rhondda and the surrounding areas as much as the coal mines have done. But perhaps he would agree with me—or at any rate, some other noble Lords might agree with me—that although he excited us, he did not apply himself very closely to the cogent arguments against the amendment employed by the two Front Bench speakers.
It is now more than five and a half weeks, but it seems much longer, since almost exactly the same cast assembled for the opening phase of the Second Reading debate. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, not only for the way in which he moved the amendment, but also for breaking the mould—or at least, cracking it a little—by coming in first. I think we shall also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, for having chosen this occasion to make his maiden speech. I am looking forward to it intensely; none the less so because I have no idea what the noble Lord will say. It breaks up the rest of us as an opening quintet, which, I fear, on the basis of our performance on 8th June, is only too predictable. Some noble Lords have exhibited great stamina. But I am not sure that the argument has been much advanced or that there have been many conversions from one side or the other.
In the Second Reading debate I expressed some views about a referendum. Those views have, if anything, since strengthened. I am not against referenda in all circumstances. I can envisage circumstances in which a further European one might be desirable. It is of course a device which is fairly alien to our constitutional habits. There has been only one national referendum. There were a few regional ones. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, is not entirely establishing a precedent to suggest that thoughts of one flickered across the minds of Mr. Arthur Balfour or even Mr. Stanley Baldwin for dealing with certain party difficulties which confronted them at the time. But the device is unusual. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, was bitterly criticised for his weakness in introducing the 1975 referendum. He was criticised to some extent by me; but any criticism I uttered was far exceeded by that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
There are, however, a number of other constitutional innovations of which I am in favour. So I would not reject the amendment on grounds of traditionalism. The essence of the reasons why in present circumstances I do reject it, or would wish to see it rejected, are these. First, if there was to be a referendum, it should without question have been at the beginning of the process of ratification, and not at the end of an incredibly tortuous and long drawn-out process of parliamentary argument which, apart from anything else, has bored the country stiff. For Britain to start now on an alternative and totally different
254
method of ratification, which would be bound to take, as I have conservatively said, at least until Christmas —after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I think it would be at least until Easter, and maybe beyond that—would make the Government look even more pathetically weak than they already look, both in Europe and here at home.
Secondly, the question to be put is far from obvious or precise. The Maastricht Treaty, in my view, is a fairly muddled treaty. And we have added still further to the muddle by the special exemptions for Britain. I am in favour, clearly and firmly, of ratifying it—not out of great respect for its merits, but because to do so will enable Europe to conduct the reappraisal which it now greatly needs in an atmosphere of common purpose rather than of mutual suspicion. Also, ratification will alone prevent Britain being reviled in Europe for having first contracted out of half the treaty and then wrecked the other half.
Maastricht yields neither a precise question nor amounts to as great a practical limitation of sovereignty as the Single European Act of 1986. That was when we accepted precise obligations relating to majority voting and other matters. If it is general aspirations containing the threat of future commitments about which we are concerned, I ask noble Lords to look at the so-called solemn declaration of Stuttgart in June 1983. Everything is there: monetary union, political union and even a common social policy. Yet the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who warmly commended Stuttgart to Parliament, three years later, after plenty of time for reflection, pushed through the Single European Act with a guillotine and the harshest of three-line Whips.
Thirdly, if we are to have referenda, we should have them as part of a clearly thought out constitutional scheme and not just as a by-product of a tactical ploy by those who have tried and failed to defeat this Bill in every possible way. There should be a clear definition laid down in advance as to what is and what is not a referendum issue. There should be established an impartial standing body to determine the form of the questions to be put. That might take us several stages towards a written constitution. But no one should think that one can just draft in an ad hoc referendum without it having considerable repercussive effect.
Another repercussive effect would be the impact of a referendum campaign, if a referendum were to take place, upon the cohesion of parties. When I hear it suggested that it might ease the strains in the Conservative Party, I rub my eyes. A referendum is very close to a general election campaign in the loyalties and the enmities that it creates. When a party divides and fights on different sides, the traumas are deep and lasting. I, perhaps better than anyone, know the fissiparous consequences of the 1975 referendum for the Labour Party. Within a short time it was out of office and has remained so for a decade and a half. If I were a member of the party opposite, I would hesitate a very long time before setting off down that road.
But I must not pretend that my primary concern is for the future welfare of the Conservative Party. What

255
I am deeply concerned about is the future influence of Britain in the world. I am convinced that another year of delay would be fatal to Britain's influence in Europe. I ask noble Lords to reject the amendment and get on with the completion of the Bill, which has been with us for too long.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—who has just sat down—for his expression of interest in what I am about to say. I shall try not to take too long in saying it. I suspect it is somewhat unusual, although I believe by no means unprecedented, to make one's maiden speech during the course of the Report stage of a Bill. To those of your Lordships who feel affronted by my departure from custom, I can only apologise but perhaps plead in mitigation that this is no ordinary Bill and that this amendment is no ordinary amendment; not to mention the fact that, having had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for a year, it was probably about time that I broke my cluck anyway.
It is a particular pleasure to speak in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Blake. My noble friend was my politics tutor when I was an undergraduate at Oxford some 40 years ago. I may say that he survived the experience remarkably well. As a result, I always pay particular heed to what he has to say.
It seems to me that at the heart of this debate lie two distinct questions. The first is whether a consultative referendum has any part in our constitution; the second is whether, if so, this Bill provides one of those rare occasions on which such a referendum is called for.
As to the first of those questions, I am happy to agree with my noble friend Lord Blake. The precedent that has to some extent inadvertently been set in recent years, that fundamental constitutional change be put to the people in a referendum, is one that I welcome. I welcome it because it buttresses a constitution that is badly in need of buttressing. But I have to agree with my noble friend the Leader of the House that those who advocate a referendum on Maastricht do not strengthen their case by praying in aid the fact that at the last general election all three political parties were in favour of Maastricht, thus depriving the electorate of the possibility of casting a vote against it. Even if that had not been so, a general election is not an occasion on which a single isolated issue can be put to the people, as Mr. Heath discovered in 1974.
But much more importantly, all-party agreement is not the only way in which the people can be deprived of the opportunity to vote against a proposal. It happens all the time. The people had no opportunity, for example, to vote against the Single European Act, which was ushered through Parliament under the leadership of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. As an issue it was not even in contemplation at the time of the 1983 general election and by the 1987 election it was already a fait accompli.
No, the question—it is an important question—is simply whether, unlike the Single European Act, the
256
Maastricht Treaty involves such a fundamental change to our constitution and such a grave loss of national and parliamentary sovereignty that it should, on those grounds and those grounds alone, be put to the people in a referendum first before final ratification can be contemplated.
Those who claim that the objective of the architects of the Maastricht Treaty is to replace the European Community of nation states by a single European superstate are clearly right. There is nothing disreputable about such an objective, although for my part, as a longstanding proponent of European unity, I believe it to be profoundly mistaken and, if it were ever to be imposed on the peoples of Europe, a blueprint for disaster. But I repeat: there is nothing disreputable about it. All that might perhaps be considered disreputable would be to deny that that is the objective of the architects of the Maastricht Treaty, since it manifestly is so.
But the question to which we have to address ourselves is whether the Maastricht Treaty in fact achieves or can be expected to achieve that objective. The heart of the Maastricht Treaty and the means by which its federalist architects seek to achieve their political objective is monetary union, the replacement of the individual European currencies and central banks by a single European currency and a single European central bank. That is the heart of it.
I believe that there are two distinct constitutional dimensions to it. In the first place the loss of one's national currency and of the ability to possess a national monetary policy is in itself a constitutional change and a loss of national autonomy of the first importance. But it does not stop there. It is envisaged that monetary policy 'would be conducted by a European central bank which is politically independent.
The idea of central bank independence has aroused increasing interest in recent years. I myself have long made clear that I favour conferring independence, within an appropriate statutory framework, on the Bank of England. But what is agreed on all sides—and the Prime Minister recently made this point in another place—is that in a democracy independence must be accompanied, as indeed it is in all those countries that already possess an independent central bank, by accountability. That involves both co-operation with the elected government of the day and open accountability to Parliament. So long as there is no single European government and no genuine Single European Parliament, a European central bank, which would arguably be the most powerful entity in the entire Community, would be effectively unaccountable and thus democratically unacceptable.
As the architects of Maastricht are doubtless aware, the only way in which that dilemma could be resolved would be to create the European political institutions of a genuine European Parliament, a European finance ministry and a European government that democracy itself would then demand. Thus would the superstate be born. However, in regard to this country, none of that is in the treaty before us today, containing as it does a protocol specifying that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or

257
committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its government and Parliament. It is of course only at the third stage that the single European currency and European central bank are planned to come into being.
It is clear that Her Majesty's Government, by negotiating that protocol, recognised the special political and constitutional significance of monetary union. Without monetary union the Maastricht Treaty is not, in my judgment, of any greater constitutional importance than the Single European Act (in the preamble to which, incidentally, the objective of monetary union was for the first time brought back to life from the grave in which it had lain since the collapse of the Werner plan in the mid-1970s).
However, should there come a time when this or any future British Government are so unwise as to conclude that this country should participate in a European monetary union, with all its political consequences, that would be a decision of such momentous constitutional significance as to warrant not merely the separate approval of Parliament at a time as provided for in the treaty before us, but also a prior referendum of the British people. Unless and until that time arrives—and for a number of reasons I rather doubt that it ever will—I do not believe that the case for a referendum is made and I shall vote tonight accordingly.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, slightly to my surprise I find myself following the precedent set by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. It fell to him to pay tribute to someone who served as his junior Minister. My noble friend Lord Lawson first served in government as one of my junior Ministers in the Treasury. I am delighted to be able to follow him. I welcome him and congratulate him on the quality of his speech. There is perhaps a difference between the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and my own, for it is not my recollection that I always, or indeed often, had the first word or even the last word in discussions with my noble friend. He gave us a speech that was lucid, learned, laconic—"Lawsonic". We look forward to hearing him again.
My noble friend helped to clear a great deal of uncontroversial ground. No one is any longer arguing that a referendum is unconstitutional in that it cannot theoretically be done. But my noble friend Lord Blake, in his compelling speech, tended to suggest that it was by no means unusual. That is slightly overstating the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, pointed out, it was without precedent in 1975 when a national referendum was held. It was strenuously and determinedly resisted at that time, for good reason. It was seen then, as it certainly is, as a formidable erosion of one aspect of parliamentary sovereignty.
The common ground now established is that we should take the utmost care to avoid falling into the habit of calling referenda. Most certainly they have the effect I described upon our parliamentary
258
constitution. That is why constitutionalists of wisdom have developed the pattern of contemplating a referendum with the longest possible pair of tongs. In 1975 it was said to be justified because of the exceptional nature of the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Accession. Indeed, there was then real novelty.
As the law officer in charge of preparing that Bill in concert with my noble friend Lord Rippon, I know well that there were many entirely novel features about it—entirely novel, supranational commitments; a law being made outside our Parliament directly applicable in the kingdom, enforceable by an outside court; amendable and extendable by a majority of the Community, even against the will of Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament. It was expressed in a treaty which was open-ended in duration without any provision for determination, with the deliberately timeless objective of the ever-closer union of the peoples of Europe. It was a process and not an event, a process of which Maastricht is a part. The objective has since then been affirmed on many occasions, not least by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and myself in the Stuttgart declaration to which reference has already been made and the Single European Act.
The European Communities Act 1972 was the fundamental change. There was another feature about it. The legislation had been contested line by line by the Labour Party who then came into government and had to deal with the Act, having presented it to the people in the intervening general election as unacceptable in the absence of renegotiation. The referendum which the Labour government, with great agony, undertook to impose upon this country, could be seen as ratifying not just the original far-reaching transfer of sovereignty, but also the far from marginal adjustment of the position of the government since the date of their arrival in office. Therefore, although the referendum was fiercely contested, for the first time it was allowed to happen.
The effect was clearly stated on 7th June 1975 by a figure not much heard of these days—the right honourable Mr. Tony Benn—when he said,
"It is clear by an overwhelming majority the British people have voted to stay in … clearly the decision of the referendum is binding on Parliament. There can be no going back".
In other words, for the first time, we heard uttered the proposition that it had been settled once and for all.
The position now being advanced is that Maastricht raises such special features that the once and for all doctrine may be invoked again within less than 20 years. But for that to happen, it must be proven in one of two ways. The first is that it must be shown that Maastricht is as far reaching as the 1972 legislation. That is not even attempted. The critics of Maastricht are trying to re-run the arguments that they decidedly lost in 1975. To them I say that we simply cannot re-run the history of the past 25 years as though it had not happened. Or it is contended that Maastricht is so decidedly different from the Single European Act, which my noble friend Lady Thatcher and I negotiated in 1985, that it must be treated in a totally different way from that legislation. That distinction cannot be made. Exactly like Maastricht, the Single European Act contained both centralising

259
and decentralising elements. It accepted and extended the primacy of Community law. It tried to make it more effective. It increased the competence of the Community. It extended majority voting substantially, thank Heaven, because without that we should never have achieved the single market to which we attach so much importance. It enhanced the powers of the European Parliament, as does Maastricht. Both treaties give new rights to citizens and retain Council unanimity for crucial matters.
Maastricht therefore is in the same constitutional tradition and of the same order of change as the Single European Act, arid not the opposite. The opponents of Maastricht now seek to challenge, night after night, what has been constitutional common ground at least since the 1975 referendum. That common ground is the ground that was taken for granted at the time of the Single European Act.
One even more important point to make in this context—about a distinction that can be drawn between the Single European Act and Maastricht—is that the Single European Act was not in any party manifesto. It certainly was not in the Government's manifesto for the 1983 election. It was not in anyone's contemplation at that time. My noble friend and I were not in favour of any treaty changes at that time but in the end we were obliged to accept them at Milan, and we exploited that opportunity to the full. We presented the Single European Act to Parliament for approval in the constitutional way. But not one elector had had any choice about that: for the good reason that at the time of the 1983 election the Single European Act was not even a gleam in its mother's eye, nor even its father's. Yet no one, when it came to the point—least of all my noble friend or myself—thought it necessary to have a referendum about that and Locke was not much quoted in Downing Street at that time. Does that not expose the hollow quality of the argument of those who now argue for a referendum because the people had no choice?
But Parliament did. What else do we mean by "parliamentary sovereignty" except that? So too for the nonsense of people's choice in the present case. Parliament, before the election, without opposition from any major party, endorsed the treaty twice, before and after negotiation, by a large majority. The treaty was part of every party manifesto at the following general election. Immediately following the election, the treaty was once again endorsed on the same terms with a majority of 244 in the other place. If the Single European Act was properly legitimised by Parliament, as it was, then the Maastricht Treaty has clearly been thrice blessed.
It has been argued that the Commons endorsed this Bill at the Third Reading by a modest majority—less than the majority of the House. There is no special legitimacy about that. But if there is, it is surely important to notice that the lower House—the other place—rejected the referendum by a plain majority of that House: 363 votes to 124. So it is very curious indeed to hear the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty now being challenged in the name of the people by Members of this House, none of whom can claim any popular mandate at all.
260
Finally, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I return to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I refer to the hopelessly late stage in the game that this point is being advanced. I risk another cricketing metaphor. There are those who argue that it is your Lordships' role to emulate the part played on the cricket field by that admirable character—the only part that I was ever remotely qualified to play myself —the long-stop. But what kind of a long-stop is it who, as here, seeks to gather up the ball when it is already almost out of the ground—in the last minute of extra time, if I may mix my metaphors —and then demand that the game should be replayed from the beginning by entirely different rules? It is surely time for this House to recognise that our domestic parliamentary game is over. It is time for this House to hasten our national team back on to the European field so that it can there play a proper, fuller part in the European game, achieving success for our continent as well as for our country and peace in Europe as well as progress for our people.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, on his excellent maiden speech. Indeed, there was much in it with which I would concur, although he will know that I believe that it would be right for us to have a referendum at this time. I can assure him that I and the whole House enjoyed his speech and we shall look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said that the whole question of whether we are part of Europe was decided in the 1975 referendum. I hesitate to disagree with him but I fear that I must because during that referendum, which incidentally was well run and perfectly well understood by the people, the government of the day issued their own document to every household in the land. The document stated quite clearly:
"There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market"—
mark you, a Common Market, not a European Union—
"towards an economic and monetary union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs a t risk. This threat has been removed".
So I would venture to suggest that what the country was voting on in 1975 was not a European Union—nor, indeed, even a European Community—but on a Common Market. I think it is very important to make that distinction and to remember it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said that this is a parliamentary democracy and that if it is a parliamentary democracy why on earth do we want a referendum. But it is because we are a parliamentary democracy that Parliament may decide to have a referendum. It will be by Parliament's decision that any referendum we have will be held. Indeed, Parliament will decide what questions are to he asked.
We have also heard that the country decided the issue on 9th June 1992 at the general election because there was a little paragraph in the Conservative manifesto. I venture to suggest that even. Members of

261
Parliament did not know what the treaty said because it had not been published in English at that time. So there could not have been a very good discussion about a treaty which was not available to the general public.
I believe that it is sensible to ask the Commons to think again. A lot has happened since they made their decision. I believe that it would be right for us to ask the Commons to think again. I do not see why that should be constitutionally objectionable to a number of people. After all, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, pointed out, we threw out the War Crimes Bill at Second Reading. But we went even further. When it came back to this House we threw it out again, the Commons having decided that they still wanted the Bill. I believe that a very good precedent has been set which certainly underlines the ability and the right of this House to pass this new clause.
What is more, only a week ago last Monday this House passed an amendment to the Railways Bill which will now go back to the House of Commons for further discussion. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that that is precisely what would happen. There is no reason at all why this House should feel concerned about passing an amendment which the Commons would then consider. Of course, in the last analysis, the House of Commons will have its way—and it should have its way—but at least we ought to give them the opportunity for second thoughts. If we do not do that, we are not worth a light, quite frankly, and we should not be sitting here.
This is an issue which transcends party politics. It is only the electors to whom sovereignty belongs, and whose lives will be affected by this treaty, who can resolve the matter one way or another. As I have already said, it would not create a great precedent if we asked the House of Commons to think again.
What of the Labour Party? My noble friend Lord Richard made a very good and telling speech, as he always does in this place, as he has always done in another place and wherever else he goes. I am sure that it will have impressed my noble friends as it impressed me. But I say to my noble friends that we, as the Labour Party and the party of the people, as we have always boasted, ought to be prepared to ensure that the people have a say. The major ground which was put forward at our annual conference by my right honourable friend Gerald Kaufman for opposing a referendum was that it would split the party.
Since all parties are split on this issue—even the Liberal Democrats are split on it—nothing would change. Indeed, it is more likely that a referendum would clarify the issue and lead to a healing process rather than to exacerbate the split. The proposition that it would split the party is not a good one. The question should be not whether the parties would be split on the issue, but whether it is right, proper and democratic to have a referendum. Opinion polls consistently confirm that the voters want one and that they resent being denied it, especially since the Danes, the French and the Irish have been granted a referendum.
262
If the people of those countries can understand the issues and come to a decision then surely we British can do likewise. Furthermore, it is not as though the Labour Party is against referendums per se. It is in favour of an immediate referendum for the Scots as to whether more power should be devolved to them. Mr. Smith, our Leader, has promised a referendum on any proposed changes in the voting system at general elections. One really must ask why it is right for the Scots to have a plebiscite on whether they should gain additional powers, but it is wrong to give the British people as a whole a plebiscite on whether they should cede powers to the institutions of the European Union.
I hope that my noble friends will recognise the incongruity of such a position and that, in the interests of consistency, they will join me in the "Contents" Lobby tonight—even if they had not already intended to do so—on the ground that it is the democratic and sensible thing to do for the sake of restoring the reputation of British politics and of Parliament itself.
Some have argued that a referendum at this stage would not reflect a reasoned decision on the treaty of union, but as an opportunity to register a vote of no confidence in the Government. That argument has been used already. But that is hardly likely to be the case since all the main political parties would be on the same side. Indeed, those of us who would want a "No" vote would be heavily outnumbered by the political parties in argument and possibly by the Press as well. So that is not a very good argument; namely, that because the Government are in bad odour we should not have a referendum. We should decide on the basis of whether it is right or wrong. After all, France had a referendum at a time when the standing of the government of the day was at 20 per cent. in the polls. Yet the "Yes" vote was 50 per cent.; so there is no direct correlation in voting on referendums to the bad or good odour of the government of the day. The figures from France show that.
The House of Lords has the opportunity to show that it is cognisant of the need for the people to have a direct voice on decisions about self-government and the handing over to institutions outside the control of the Government and Parliament, including economic and monetary policy, which will have so significant an effect on their well-being and livelihood. It must be right for an intelligent and sophisticated electorate like ours to be consulted on such an issue when its self-government is at stake. Therefore, I hope noble Lords in great numbers and in a majority this evening, will join me in the "Content" Lobby later on.
4.46 p.m.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I mean to be extremely brief and I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased at that. At Second Reading I stressed my strong belief in our parliamentary procedure as the proper means of taking decisions. I am therefore strongly prejudiced against the use of referendums. But I shall not base my opposition to this amendment on that principle or any other principle alone. I want

263
mainly to argue the case against this proposal as a matter of judgment concerning the relationship of the two Houses of Parliament.
For what it is worth, my opinions are based on practical experience in my career as Leader both of another place and of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that they can necessarily be less valuable because of that. The success of our parliamentary system in handling legislation depends on a mutual acceptance of the different roles of the two Houses. The elected House of Commons must have its leading position, with the unelected House of Lords as a revising Chamber.
Success comes when the two Houses respect each other. The dangers arise when either House goes too far—the other place by riding roughshod, as it certainly has done even in my time as Leader of the House of Lords, over this House by rejecting all our amendments; and the House of Lords by seeking to usurp the leading role of the elected Chamber. Of course, when such cases occur both Houses are no doubt within their constitutional rights. But the question which I want to put to your Lordships is simple: is it wise in practice or unwise? That is the judgment which one has to make.
I believe that this proposal is just such a case. The other place has rejected a referendum with a massive majority of 239. That is a fact which must surely be of crucial importance in the argument and yet was somewhat surprisingly omitted from the leading article in The Times and by the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, on Monday of this week. I noticed that; arid, as I would have expected, my noble friend Lord Blake saw that and put it in his letter as a perfectly clear fact. It is a very important fact indeed.
Your Lordships' House is now being asked to overturn this very clear decision. This proposal cannot be represented as the action of a revising Chamber, neither does it provide any opportunity for compromise. It is in fact the clear rejection of the elected Chamber's decision on a constitutional and voting question. For good measure, that is being proposed by the unelected House of Lords.
No Prime Minister—certainly no Prime Minister that I have ever known—and no government or House of Commons could be expected to accept such a clear challenge and reverse their decision. Therefore, even if the vote were carried in your Lordships' House—those of your Lordships who decide to vote for the amendment will have to take the consequences of their action—the result would not be a referendum. Instead, there would be a damaging controversy between the two Houses and further delay, which would do much harm to our nation. In those circumstances, I cannot believe that your Lordships' House will proceed on such an unwise course. I trust that the amendment will be rejected by an overwhelming majority.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I had not made up my mind whether to speak this evening from the Cross-Benches, but in view of what was said earlier I
264
have no alternative but to make a short contribution. I am sure that the House will not object too much if that contribution is, indeed, short.
I suppose that I can claim some modest qualification for making a contribution to this discussion in that, as has been explained, I was the Chief Counting Officer for the 1975 referendum. I am the only person to have the experience of running a nationwide referendum. It was an interesting experience for a variety of reasons, but it did not leave me as an advocate of referenda. To the contrary; and I should like to take a minute or two to give the four main reasons why I am opposed to the amendment.
First—this means repeating a point which has been made several time, but it is important—it is basic, to my mind, that it is the responsibility of Parliament to decide major policy issues. As has been explained, we joined the Common Market without a referendum, very properly, and we endorsed the Single European Act without a referendum. It is a device not easy to reconcile with our system of parliamentary democracy. If we were to go down that road. as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has hinted, at some future date and in some future circumstances, I agree with those who believe that it would be for the elected House to decide.
Secondly, if one has a referendum—this is the lesson I learnt most clearly—it is essential that the question put to the voters is clear and plain and susceptible of being answered by a simple yes or no. That was just possible in 1975. It seems to me, despite all that has been said, to be impossible now. The issues are so complicated, especially with possible variants to take account of the social chapter and the single currency, that one could end up with a list of questions. To my mind, that is simply not on.
Thirdly, there is the likelihood that some voters would take it as an opportunity to express their views about the Government rather than the treaty. It is argued that other countries have consulted the people, and so why should not we? But, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, there is ground for thinking that in France, for example, the voting was influenced by precisely that consideration, even though the Government scraped home in the end. As we recall, in Southern Ireland the voting was complicated by the intrusion of a totally irrelevant factor.
Fourthly, I look at the amendment itself. lt is rather odd that we have reached this stage of the debate without any comment having been made on its drafting. It seems to me, although I am no lawyer, that it falls short of perfection. In 1975, an Act of Parliament was passed—the Referendum Act—supplemented by a 24-page subordinate instrument. The Act set out the question to be asked; provided who could vote, including peers; provided for payment to officials; provided funds. for the bodies organising propaganda on both sides; made a number of detailed provisions about the conduct of the referendum, including special arrangements for the forces; and provided that the figures of the Chief Counting Officer, I am happy to say, could not be challenged in court.

265
I am bound to say that I feel grave doubt about whether the words in the amendment are sufficient to carry an order which would deal with all those things and one or two others with which I shall not weary your Lordships. It is also worth recalling that the 1975 Bill was amended substantially during its passage through Parliament. If we have all that done by order, there is no means of amending it, and some of its contents would be bound to be controversial. It is for those reasons that cumulatively I am led to the conclusion that I should vote against the amendment.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I, too, was greatly impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I welcomed his frankness and honesty when he told the House that to proceed to economic and monetary union and a single currency was to progress irrevocably towards a federal superstate. I found it surprising therefore that he came out against the amendment on the insubstantial argument that we should rely upon the fragile lifeline of an impermanent protocol. I do not find much comfort in that, frankly, because what we face today is that the intention of the Maastricht Treaty is just as he spelt it out. That is the purpose behind it. It is intended to take us psychologically, although in this country's case not completely legally, another step towards the creation of a federal superstate. If it were put to the British people in that form, I have no doubt that they would throw it out.
The trouble is that the issues are not being put to the people in the form that they should be. I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, earlier this week on the "Today" programme. He asserted something which amused me greatly. "Oh", he said,
"the referendum of 1975 settled everything once and for all".
He repeated that today, although today he took refuge behind the skirts of Tony Benn, which I found an unusual position for him to occupy.
What struck me was the tribute that the noble and learned Lord paid to the value of a referendum. He did not dismiss it as constitutionally meaningless or unsound. He said that it settled everything. It was settled in a way that all the discussions in another place have not done, because the people had spoken. But I want also to challenge the basis for his claim that 1975 settled everything. My noble friend Lord Stoddart made that point tellingly. I wish to underline it. The misleading of the people of this country started in 1972 under the leadership of Mr. Edward Heath when we were debating the terms for Britain's membership of the European Community that he had brought back.
I remember Mr. Heath telling the British people that they need fear nothing because we had a veto with which we could always protect any national interest that was threatened. It was on that basis that many British people accepted his argument. I wish to quote from the speech that he made in February 1972. He said:
"The question, therefore … is how we can best protect our rightful interests. If it is to be done on a majority decision, then there is a possibility of being out-voted. But if it is a
266
question of a unanimous decision and we have the right of veto, then we have the ability to protect our essential interests. [Interruption.] With respect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, we have the right of veto".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/2/72; col. 746.]
That was the starting point for this whole exercise.
We have been taken on inexorably on the basis of a series of false premises; indeed, on a series of false prospectuses that have been put before the people of this country. This is the moment of truth when we must let the people know exactly what is happening. During the referendum of 1975 exactly the same prospectus was held out.
I wish to quote from one of the official referendum documents which was issued by the Labour Government of which I was a Member—although a dissident Cabinet Minister on this issue. I read from what the British people were told during the referendum campaign of 1975:
"It is the Council of Ministers, and not the Market's officials, who take the important decisions. These decisions can be taken only if all the members of the Council agree. The Minister representing Britain can veto any proposal for a new law or a new tax if he considers it to be against British interests".
There was, of course, a most telling passage about how we completely rejected any prospect of economic and monetary union.
That was the manifesto on which the people of this country voted yes. I challenge any Member of this House to say that we have had a proper sounding of the feelings of the British people. Throughout they have been told that this does not count and that does not count. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, played her part. I heard her speak in the European Parliament after she had signed the solemn declaration at Stuttgart, of which she said,
"We are moving towards European unity but don't take any notice of the words".
The next thing that we were faced with was the Single European Act. It has been agreed on all sides of the House that that was a massive step towards the federal concept, which is now being brought to fruition in the Maastricht Treaty. Indeed, some noble Lords who will vote against a referendum argue that because that Act is on the statute book we should accept Maastricht uncritically. I am sorry, I do not want death by a thousand little steps. I do not like it and I do not believe that the British people would like the end and the aim if they knew what it was about. The biggest argument for a referendum is that as yet they have not been told.
I pay full tribute to all Members of this House and of another place who have argued the rights and wrongs of the different aspects of Maastricht and have done so knowledgeably and coherently. But do noble Lords believe that the people outside understand? Do they ever talk to the taxi drivers on the way to this House? They ask, "What's it all about?". They do not have a clue what is involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said that referenda are very complicated and he would find it difficult to formulate a question which embodied the Maastricht issue. But is not that an admission that we are expecting people to be taken in blind? I believe that the only way to make the British people struggle to understand what is involved, and the only way to

267
ensure that we explain clearly what is involved, is for them to have a vote. While all the clever MPs and Members of this House pontificate in learned terms about such matters they do not have a chance of understanding. They leave it to us and wonder a little about such issues.
It is vital that if the lifeline between us and economic and monetary union and a federal superstate is to hold we must enlighten and mobilise British public opinion. The way to do that is to have to conduct the kind of campaign in which I took part in 1975. I was on the losing side but that was because the British people had been given assurances that were not justified. It is a great betrayal of our sacred trust to those people if we take this dramatic step without involving them, their minds and their hearts as we have not yet begun to do.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this is an important issue and the House is greatly in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, for tabling the amendment. Over the years I have had the pleasure of working with the noble Lord on many constitutional issues. He takes a consistent and constructive interest, in contrast with the sort of sporadic constitutional fever which currently seizes your Lordships' House.
I speak as a Member who believes that a referendum should have a defined if limited place in a new constitutional settlement in order to establish a higher standard of consent for constitutional change; changes to the rules of a political game, as it were. However, I need hardly point out that we do not have a new constitutional settlement. We have the same old partisan ragbag in which expediency rules and in which politicians under pressure grasp at whatever precedent suits their purpose.
I am not arguing that the Maastricht Treaty is the moment at which constitutional change crystallises, when the rules change and when some elements of sovereignty are pooled. As several noble Lords have said, that happened at the time of the Single European Act and before. Therefore, I shall not support the amendment, whereas some of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place did.
I believe in urgent progress by the European project. Despite the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I fear that a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in a country such as Britain, which has no proper tradition of referenda and no proper constitutional place for them, would turn into a gigantic national by-election. It would be an opportunity to give the Government a hefty kick in the seat of the pants. No doubt it would be highly therapeutic but it would have nothing to do with the case. Some noble Lords on this side of the House may consider that there is nothing wrong in giving the Government a hefty kick in the seat of the pants. However, Members on these Benches have a free vote on the issue. The destruction of the European project in a referendum would be a heavy price for those of us who value it to pay.
Therefore, as one who on the whole supports referenda but who even more anxiously supports the
268
European Union, I say, in the words of Isaiah Berlin, that not all good things are compatible and that for me and perhaps some of my noble friends progress towards European Union matters more.
Perhaps I may briefly lower the tone. The Government Front Bench will be bailed out this evening by fairly large numbers—although not universally—of Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers. Candidly, the Government do not deserve our help. This whole episode has come about because the Government have consistently treated Britain's future in Europe as a matter for the Conservative Party alone and as a question of intra-party dispute rather than as a national issue. They have not consulted Opposition parties. They have not tried to build a national consensus. They have not taken the electorate into their confidence. They kept quiet about Maastricht throughout the general election. Consequently, there is a gap between the Government and the people on this issue.
To noble Lords on the Government Front Bench, I say: do not think that we shall be there to save you on the social policy opt-out because we shall not. When the IGC takes place in 1996 and this debate is behind us and when there is a real opportunity to define a decentralised and democratic Europe which could command general support throughout this country, if by any chance the party opposite is still in office, will it please make it a national debate and a national decision in which we can all share? Meanwhile, I shall vote against the amendment, and I urge your Lordships to do the same.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the central argument advanced by my noble friend Lord Blake in support of the amendment is that we are signing up to something which represents a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangements and, therefore, t he people must be allowed a referendum. I have been enormously impressed by the opinions of those who do not believe that the Bill represents a constitutional watershed. Most particularly I respect the views of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who told us on Second Reading that,
"there is no great constitutional quantum leap in this treaty"
and that,
"the Maastricht Treaty has checked, or at least stabilised"
some centralising excesses which followed the Single European Act.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe reinforced those arguments today. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has, with great authority, argued that,
"talk of major change in this country's constitutional law as a result of the treaty is simply wrong"
and that,
"The structure that was approved ultimately in the referendum of 1975 remains in place".—[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 712.]
Despite those powerful arguments, we are today confronted with the demand for a referendum to be held at the very end of the process of parliamentary examination—not as a consultative guide to the

269
deliberations of Parliament but as a means of reversing decisions already taken by the elected Chamber.
My noble friend Lady Thatcher, speaking on 11th March 1975 as the new Leader of the Opposition during a debate about the referendum on EC membership, said:
"A referendum may, however, become acceptable if given a proper constitutional foundation, that is to say, if the conditions under which it could be used were defined. But that would mean, like many other democratic countries, going as far as a written constitution or at least part of the way".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; col. 310.]
In a thoughtful speech my noble friend argued against the use of a referendum simply for the purpose of political expedience for, as she pointed out at col. 309:
"It is frequently the case that those who are against a change in the law put up the proposition of a referendum when they believe that by having one, they can defeat the change in the substantive law … Whoever tends to be against a Bill proposes a referendum".
Well, that is certainly the position that we find ourselves in today.
In April 1978, my noble friend Lady Thatcher appointed a committee under my chairmanship to consider the place of the referendum in our constitutional arrangements. We presented our report to the Shadow Cabinet in July of the same year. We began that report, as my noble friend had begun her 1975 speech and as my noble friend Lord Blake did today, by acknowledging that inside the Conservative Party the pro-referendum tradition has a long history. There are, of course, many names inside the Conservative Party and outside who can be quoted on both sides of the argument.
My committee, therefore, approached the whole issue with an open mind, and on the basis that a powerful case could be made out in favour of the referendum as a constitutional safeguard. The principal concern of my committee was about the difficulty of reconciling the referendum with the concept of representative parliamentary democracy. We said:
"We have been led to ask ourselves what Members of Parliament who are elected to use their own judgment are to do if that judgment should be in conflict with the outcome of a referendum, and we have had to consider whether people send representatives to Parliament to vote for something they may believe to be wholly wrong and damaging to their country because a particular question, asked in a particular way at a particular time, has thrown up a particular answer".
At a very early stage we reached the unanimous conclusion that it was as a constitutional safeguard that the referendum could be most easily reconciled with our system of parliamentary democracy, although we were very much aware of the difficulty of adequately defining a constitutional issue. We had been told that it was the problem of definition that had led the Conservative Review Committee on the House of Lords under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel to decide against making a proposal to vest a power in the second Chamber to call for a referendum on constitutional issues. The Home Committee feared that it might encourage conflict between the two Houses. Consequently, it concluded that regular use of referendums as an instrument of constitutional protection should be contemplated only
270
within a wider framework of constitutional reform. The committee which I chaired reached a similar conclusion, but we proposed a major constitutional Bill which would provide for a referendum before any fundamental change in the constitution could be made.
We saw little prospect of a written constitution as a realisable objective, but we did think that the Bill that we proposed would have a special status which could not lightly be set aside by the government of the day. The primary protection sought by the Bill would be the existence of the second Chamber and it would protect the basic institutions of the constitution by requiring a referendum before they were fundamentally altered.
So, like my noble friend Lady Thatcher and the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, we concluded that there could be a place for a referendum but only as part of a wider package of reform; or, again to quote my noble friend Lady Thatcher by,
"going as far as a written constitution or at least part of the way".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; col. 310.]
A few weeks ago my noble friend told me that she had been re-reading our report. I am sure she will remember that when we put that report to the Shadow Cabinet and she had the opportunity to consider and debate those proposals and had the chance to create arrangements for the use of a referendum as a constitutional safeguard and for other purposes, she chose to do nothing. She was, as always, courteous to the committee that had laboured on her behalf. She said that the report was valuable and that it should be published. It appeared as an Old Queen Street paper in the autumn of 1978.
So here we are today back in the situation my noble friend criticised in 1975, with those who are against a change in the law putting up a referendum as a means of defeating the Bill they dislike and, according to some, as a means of avoiding conflict in the government party. My noble friend was pretty harsh on that last proposition as well in 1975. She pointed out that the whole relationship of government with Parliament depends on the principle of collective responsibility. She said:
"No government can be properly accountable to Parliament unless they acknowledge a collective responsibility with regard to main matters of policy … on all major matters the essential task of government is decision. That does not mean absence of argument or absence of some differences; it means the capacity to reach a decision after argument and consideration and sticking to it or resigning".
My noble friend continued:
"We now face the new system. If the Government cannot agree, gone is the discipline of resignation; gone is the principle of accountability to Parliament; the new doctrine is to pass the buck to the people". [Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; col. 311.]
That, I fear, is the doctrine being put before the House today. However, on this occasion what is at stake is even more fundamental. The Labour government in 1975 was in effect saying, "We can live with a decision taken in a referendum; we can adjust and adapt our policies accordingly". Today, the present Government is not in that position. They have embraced the principle of collective responsibility and they have taken a decision: they have taken the decision that the

271
treaty and the Bill are of fundamental importance, and they have persuaded the House of Commons to pass the Bill on that basis.
The amendment does not propose a consultative referendum: it proposes to remove the responsibility from government and place it elsewhere. The Government would not—and, indeed, could not—be responsible for all the consequences that would flow from that event, and, in my view, could not continue in office in that situation because my noble friend Lady Thatcher was quite right—
Lord McIntosh off f Haringey: My Lords,—
A noble Lord: No interruptions!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there was no consultative referendum. However, if he reads the amendment he will see that it actually refers to a "consultative referendum".
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the essential task of government is to take decisions and to stick to them or resign. It has been argued that that is not so, that happy harmony would return to the Tory party and that the Government would carry on as if nothing had happened. That may be right in academic theory, but I have to say to my noble friend Lord Blake that it seems to me to be highly unlikely that that would be the situation we would face if the referendum led to the defeat of the policies of Her Majesty's Government. I have no doubt that if Maastricht was rejected in the referendum, it would be a pretty mortal blow for the present Administration.
There are, of course, other objections to what is proposed. We heard from the noble Lord who conducted the last referendum about the difficulties of posing the right question. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, had something to say about that on Second Reading. However, it has become even more difficult since my noble friend Lord Tebbit produced his pegs during the Committee stage. Indeed, I have lost count of the number of pegs that he has hammered in and left in the cliff face for others, hypothetically, to mount. The referendum would, presumably, have to address at least some of them.
The trouble is that there is a very strong chance that however many of those questions you put, it would be matters of a very different kind that would decide the issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pungently put it on Second Reading, while reminding us that the Government are deeply unpopular:
"If the Government were to launch a referendum in favour of motherhood and apple pie, they would probably lose it".—(Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 718.]
However, there is a more central objection. I refer to the objection mentioned earlier, which is really the key to the whole matter. The fact is that the issue has been debated by another place. The other place rejected the proposition by a majority of 239. It seems to me that, whatever the proprieties of a referendum are, the worst possible way is to tag it on to a Bill by adding a clause—a clause, I should say, added by the unelected House after the elected Chamber has approved the Bill, considered it in immense detail and
272
rejected by an overwhelming majority the proposition that it should not be implemented without prior approval of a referendum.
The proposal that the referendum should be held in those circumstances is wrong in principle: it is wrong for the practical reasons that I have outlined; and, it is wrong by reason of the arguments so cogently advanced by my noble friend Lady Thatcher in the 1975 debate. For all those reasons, I shall vote against the amendment.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I should like to make a point before my noble friend sits down. He said that there was no proposal for a consultative referendum. In fact, if he looks at the amendment he will see that there is.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, in response to the plea made to us by the Leader of the House at the beginning of this historic debate, I can assure your Lordships that I neither will nor can repeat what I may have said at previous stages for the simple reason that, due to prolonged absence abroad, I was unable to participate in any of the preceding phases of the Bill.
I dare say that I am as European as anyone in this House or elsewhere. I am married to a Frenchwoman and we have five Irish-born children. We lived for 10 years or more in each of three European countries—Germany before the war, then England and finally Ireland. Moreover, since 1979 I have served as the President of the Conference of European Rabbis, which was founded in 1957; in other words, we Rabbis entered Europe long before Britain did. We meet in a different European capital every Six months.
In addition, I owe spiritual allegiance to a faith which pioneered the hope for a fraternity of nations where, in the words of Isaiah:
"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more".
All that disposes me to be decidedly pro-European. Yet I have serious reservations; and, indeed, some grave fears on the current development; in the European Community. Had the EEC, as its name declares, remained a purely economic union meant to promote Europe's peace and prosperity, no one would have reason to cavil. In fact, we could have dispensed with today's debate.
However, political ambitions by today's planners and bureaucrats have gone far beyond that stage. Indeed, whether we will all become citizens of Europe; how we construct our abattoirs and slaughter our animals; what constitutes pollution or proper speed limits for vehicles that are heavy on our roads; whether we tolerate some corporal punishment in schools; or whether we use cartons or bottles for our milk deliveries—all that has precious little to do with economics.
Of course, it may be argued that those concerns may not be economic and, therefore, what is the danger, harm or risk involved? A creeping annexation of sovereignty rights are involved. For the federalists, those excesses are merely the first steps towards a much closer union in which national identities will eventually be submerged in a singe European

273
superstate. To promote an illusion, to nurture hopes which are unrealistic, is in itself dangerous. If the attempt eventually fails, the disillusionment can seriously depress national morale, possibly to the point of despair and even violence.
Some people advocate a united states of Europe on the lines of the USA. What a futile comparison! In America, all citizens—except, that is, the Red Indians—arrived as immigrants. They came as equals but without a common language, a common culture, a common history or a common identity and so they had to create their own.
In Europe all these divisions and distinctions are deeply rooted and they cannot be artificially set aside by some Treaty of Rome or of Maastricht. The whole mentality is different. There is no European Statue of Liberty to proclaim in the immortal words of Emma Lazarus,
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".
Rather we hear the opposite chorus from some Europeans who say, "Take our tired, our poor, our huddled masses".
In the past Europe, or at least the bulk of it, has been truly united only under the Romans and under Hitler—both held in thrall by military might. Without such pressure, and especially nowadays, people insist on freedom and national sovereignty even more than on prosperity, and sometimes even more than on life itself. Only under the dictatorships of Stalin and Tito could the diverse national and ethnic elements in the Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia be held together and in check. In a democratic society this has proved impossible leading to fearful civil wars which even the united efforts of the rest of the world have been unable to contain.
Sooner or later, the denial or the limitation of complete national sovereignty is bound to sow the seeds of conflict. This applies even in long-established countries. I would mention in this regard the Basques in Spain, the Scots in the United Kingdom and the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia. Any derogation of national sovereignty threatens rather than promotes Europe's security.
I utter a word of caution. In the aspired European union all member states will of course be equal in theory. However, in practice some will be more equal than others, just as in Orwell's Animal Farm. Power in the modern European context means economic power. If one state has about twice the population of any other, its hegemony is bound to prevail. The stakes are high and weighty and perhaps so grave that for once even party political loyalties should give way to prudence. Is it really worth while to sell the nation's birthright of independent sovereignty for a mess of potage, however profitable the transaction may be economically? Let the people decide.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order, order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, behave yourselves. One at a time. We will have the Lord Campbell, then we will have the Lord Beloff.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, as regards the birthright exchanged for the mess of potage as that has been the subject matter of so many considerations during the course of this Bill. I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord if I do not deal with it.
I am sure your Lordships will all agree that my noble friend Lord Blake has rendered signal service not only to your Lordships' House but also to the country as a whole in affording this opportunity for civilised discussion and debate. As my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said, this amendment certainly does not invoke our revisory role. The avowed purpose of the amendment is to delay ratification by holding a referendum. Some noble Lords hope that by that measure the Bill may never be ratified at all. However, that is not the hope of my noble friend Lord Blake.
The arguments for and against the merits of Maastricht are irrelevant to this debate—here again I agree with my noble friend Lord Blake—and I exclude them. It is the futility of this exercise, spoken to by so many noble Lords, which simply beggars belief. Were this amendment to be accepted by your Lordships, another place would reject it and return it to us in a matter of days. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, there would be a delay at all events until about February 1994, if not longer. As another noble Lord has said—I forget who it was—a delay would be fatal to our position.
At this stage—I hope I am looking at the matter objectively—I consider it would be wholly premature to consider any question of confrontation with another place. That matter simply does not arise at this stage. The amendment has been accepted by the Table as in conformity with constitutional propriety, and that is that so far. Indeed, in 1969 your Lordships' House assumed the role of a constitutional watch-dog on the boundaries Bill to change constituency boundaries. Although your Lordships have intervened in the past in electoral matters—I say with respect that the contribution of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell supports this assertion—I have been unable to find any precedent for your Lordships' House acting as a constitutional watch-dog in these circumstances. As my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said, your Lordships may well consider that this is the occasion for the exercise of wisdom and restraint. There is no constructive purpose to be served by rejecting the view of another place. There is also the matter of delay.
I was to some degree involved with the War Crimes Bill and I shall deal with the point that was made about it. This is not in pari materia at all. That Bill was opposed in principle at Second Reading. If one attends to the speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, one can see immediately that if one is

275
concerned with the question of a referendum, this measure is not in the same league of discussion. As my noble friend Lord Whitelaw mentioned, why should we exercise restraint? Why is it unwise for us to exercise our powers? I understand it is common ground that they exist. I certainly accept that they exist.
First, the treaty was properly concluded under the Royal prerogative, on the advice of government. It has been accepted through this Bill by another place, which rejected a referendum as proposed by this amendment. Secondly, I say with respect to my noble friend Lord Blake that in my opinion there is no viable prospect that another place may think again on the issue. In the case of the War Crimes Bill it was genuinely thought, certainly by myself, that another place might think again. However, there is no prospect at all of that happening in this case. Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty was a common manifesto commitment of all the political parties and it remains the official policy of all political parties today. Therefore, what conceivable prospect can there be that another place will think again?
To accept the amendment in those circumstances and to send it to another place would not only be a sterile exercise of your Lordships' power but it would be seen as such. It would be seen as a quixotic tilt at a windmill. It would be seen as such by those, wherever they may sit, who are anxious to impose reform on your Lordships' House. For us, as an unelected Chamber, having no mandate from the electorate, to rely on opinion polls and say to another place that we represent the will of the people and they, the political representatives in the elected Chamber, do not evinces more than a mere hint of hubris.
As to the merits of the argument for and against holding a referendum, again the principle, the process and the preconditions as formulated by my noble friend Lord Blake at Second Reading are wholly accepted and not called in question. However, it is much to be doubted whether the two essential preconditions exist. Those preconditions are, first, significant constitutional revision, and, secondly, clear, precise and intelligible questions. If those preconditions do not exist, and it is much to be doubted that they do, it is even more to be doubted whether the principle and process, albeit of relatively recent provenance and limited in the sense in which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell explained, should be extended in stark, direct conflict with the decision taken by another place. Surely divisions of opinion which exist on these Benches and on the Benches opposite cannot require and induce your Lordships to propose a referendum contrary to the decision of an elected Chamber. There must be some other reason than the internecine divisions within parties.
As to those preconditions, on the one hand there is the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, my noble friend Lord Blake and other noble Lords that enormous constitutional implications are involved which would change the rules of our entire political system. On the other hand there is the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to which reference has been made, the
276
other noble and learned Lords referred to by my noble friend Lord Blake and other noble Lords, including myself, although my opinion is of very little value, that such is not the case. Here we go again, tot homilies. The question is whether it is established beyond doubt that there is a serious constitutional revision.
The second issue is the questions which are to be asked. That matter has been referred to by my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is said that it is not possible to formulate questions in clear and precise terms. The proposition has been made that it does not really matter because Parliament will decide on the questions. That is to put either the chicken before the egg or the cart before the horse. Before one decides whether one has a referendum one has to decide what questions are to be put. Nobody has yet formulated any questions for your Lordships' consideration. What sort of questions will be asked? What will the parameters be? How many questions will there be? How are these complex issues—which we have debated in more than a dozen agreed compartments and within a disciplined time limit for the purpose of conducting a six-day Committee stage—to be put fairly, intelligibly and in an understandable way to the electorate for a yes or no? We simply do not know.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, who was the Advocate General at the European Court for many years and as your Lordships know is a distinguished member of your Lordships' Appellate Committee, suggested at Second Reading from his experience that there could not be fewer than 25 questions. That is a view which warrants some credence.
As stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the constitutional position is that with Maastricht we do not go beyond the parameters of the logical steps taken at Stuttgart and under the Single European Act, as mentioned by my noble friend the Leader of the House and my noble friend and learned. Lord Howe.
In conclusion, it comes to this. Those who propose the amendment must surely make it good. What cogent reasons or compelling arguments have they adduced to justify that conclusion?
5.47 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am not surprised that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway decided not to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and preferred to relax into his favourite position of expertise on constitutional niceties. The constitutional niceties have indeed played a very large part in the speeches of the noble Lord, of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and of others who oppose the referendum. However, having listened to the days and days of debate it seems to me that they miss the central point.
The central point is surely that we are considering whether there should be a British constitution in which the relations between the two Houses, the relations between Executive and legislature, and whether, and if so when, we should have referenda, but these are all secondary. The first point about a constitution is who makes the laws—who governs?

277
The point that has been made as to why it is important to consult the people on this subject is that that is in the process of being changed. I was convinced—I am not often convinced—by the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. It is perfectly correct that the Maastricht Treaty is not an innovation. It is a furthering of a process which has been in train since 1972. Therefore, it is also true that if we had a referendum, it would be a verdict on that process.
It is important to grasp that fact and the fact that many people prefer to try to slide over the extent to which the central issue which a referendum would be asked to address is: who makes the laws? It has been said that we have very satisfactory proceedings in your Lordships' House. However, although I was convinced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn —he was quite frank about the role which the European Court has in promoting integration—I was less convinced by some of the answers given to my noble friends from the Front Bench on particular issues of Community policy and how far the Government believed themselves during negotiations, or would feel in further negotiations, to be in a position to safeguard British interests.
It may be that if the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is correct that the one factor to be avoided at all costs is being involved in a single government, which would be implied by a single currency, then perhaps we have an element of hope. But law making affects other factors besides currency and finance. Who makes the law is, after all, an important question. That process has gradually removed spheres of law making from our Parliament to other bodies in which we have a minority representation.
Surely that in itself is answer enough to those who say, "We have not had referenda before. We have only had them under special circumstances", or, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, "I wrote a report donkey's years ago in which I showed that the thing was impossible". I believe, incidentally, that my noble friend would qualify for some kind of award for diligent historical research. I shall recommend him to the academy along those lines. However, leaving aside the reminiscences of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, such process remains a fact. It was pointed out with great eloquence by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. If it is interesting to find the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, sheltering behind Tony Benn, to find myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, on the same side is also a matter for thought.
Therefore, despite what has been said, it does not seem to me that there is any problem about the question that would have to be put to the people. Twenty-five or a dozen questions are totally unnecessary because there is only one question which the British people should be asked in a referendum: do you wish the laws under which you live to be made by the Queen in Parliament; or do you wish them to be made by foreigners sitting in Brussels? Surely people can make up their minds one way or another. One
278
does not have to be a learned lawyer to be able to answer that question. If that question is put, I think we know what the British people's answer would be.
5.53 p.m.
The Duke of Devonshire: My Lords, I rise with considerable diffidence and in some embarrassment because, as noble Lords will see, I am a signatory to the amendment, and very proud to be so. However, your Lordships may think that as someone who attends this House on relatively rare occasions I am rather above my station in putting myself forward as a signatory. Indeed, my contributions to this House are few and far between. The last time I spoke was the day the Gulf War broke out when your Lordships saw fit to discuss horse-racing.
However, I feel very strongly on the issue. I make no bones about it. I am pro a referendum because I am convinced that the country, if asked the question, would vote decisively against the Treaty of Maastricht. That is the reason that I support a referendum.
Secondly, I support a referendum because I believe, no matter what the constitutional niceties may be, that the people have every right to be consulted. It is admitted that there was a conspiracy of silence from all three parties at the last general election. The treaty was virtually not an issue. Therefore the people of this country have not been consulted on what is a matter of transcending importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said.
When the debate began today, there were serried ranks on all sides of the House. It is not a dissimilar occasion to when Lord Grey put the Question on the 1832 Reform Act. That was a great occasion because it was a great extension of British democracy. If the Maastricht Treaty is passed, it will be a great diminution of British democracy; and that is a sad day for all of us.
We have heard much about interfering with another place and with political democracy, which is a matter for Parliament. I do not have to tell your Lordships that there is a sad disillusionment with party politics in the country today. One hears it everywhere. Were this House and another place to agree to a referendum, it would enormously reinforce the belief of the people of this country in their elected representatives. The feeling of disillusionment is sad and worrying. If the country were to be consulted through a referendum, it would lead to a great restoration of confidence in the elected representatives of this country. Therefore I earnestly support a referendum.
I, too, find myself delighted and somewhat surprised to agree with every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said. Many years ago we sat on opposite sides of the House. I am convinced that if the amendment is carried, another place is asked to consider the matter again and a referendum is held, it would be to the enormous advantage of this country because we would not go for Maastricht. It would be an enormous advantage to the country because it would restore the people's faith in their elected politicians, which sadly has fallen away. I can see no

279
reason to oppose it. I firmly believe, too, were the vote to be by secret ballot. the result would be very different from what it may well be this evening. If people could vote according to their conscience and not according to how their party Whips tell them, we would have that different result. As a proud signatory to the amendment, I ask noble Lords very warmly to endorse it.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I venture to make a contribution to the debate from the experience of having taken an active part in two referendums in this country, in 1975 and 1979. In June 1975 it was a referendum on whether to remain in the European Communities, and in March 1979 it was whether to approve the Scotland Act and the Wales Act. Shortly after the 1979 referendum, I initiated a debate in this House on the course of events in Scotland during the referendum campaign period. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, told us of four points which he registered in 1975 as Chief Counting Officer. I shall add some comment on two practical points as a campaigner in the two referendums.
My impression from that experience is that a referendum will not reliably reflect the opinion of the electorate unless the issue is clear and uncomplicated. I am not opposed to referendums in principle. In certain circumstances I believe that they can be a timely way of measuring opinion or support on a particular matter. In this country, which is not accustomed to referendums at intervals, little will be gained if there is not a definite, easily identifiable issue.
It is not just a matter of the question. That can be simple. The exact wording in 1975 was:
"Do you think the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?".
The United Kingdom had already been in the European Communities for two-and-a-half years and there had been two-and-a-half years of negotiation before that. Many were opposed to holding a referendum then both in Parliament and outside. The issue was clear, I believe, and many of the public resident in this country in the previous two-and-a-half years felt that they had some experience of what life was like within the Communities.
In Scotland in March 1979 the exact wording of the question was:
"Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?".
The question in Wales was similar. That 1978 Scotland Act was readily available and it was eminently readable. Its drafting did not consist largely of references to past statutes and insertion and substitution of new wording, as in the Maastricht Treaty, as we have learnt only too well in recent days.
However, there were grave doubts in Scotland at that time about whether a referendum was appropriate for deciding on a medium-sized Act of Parliament—doubts which one could well understand. The mitigating factor was that a voter need only read the first few pages of that Act to grasp what was being proposed. They were clear and uninterrupted by references requiring further examination.
280
It is worth noting that the 1979 referendums and questions were not on devolution, a concept which could be translated into 100 different forms. The issue was yes or no to a particular new constitutional structure embodied in writing in a document. Good and bad points were perceived as opinions and debated during the referendum campaign period.
The Maastricht Treaty is a very different creature and a strange one for the average member of the public who is new to the subject arid who has not concerned himself or herself with those matters until now. Most of the text consists of inserting new wording or replacing passages in previous treaties. That may present few problems for us parliamentarians. I myself go back to the Schuman Declaration in the summer of 1950 and the consequent Coal and Steel Community. My work, interest and of course age are reasons why I have been involved or have followed closely the negotiations and the developments in Western Europe ever since.
The question in a referendum now would presumably be: "Do you want the Maastricht Treaty to be ratified by the United Kingdom Government?", or something similar. That is a simple question, but many members of the public would not identify a clear, straightforward issue. Although many subjects would be raised in the campaign—for example, citizenship, subsidiarity, currency and agriculture, to mention a few—it is likely that the votes would, in the event, be influenced by other extraneous matters—perhaps domestic United Kingdom policies which were exercising the mind of the electorate at the time.
My noble friend Lord Blake indicated that this might reflect on the intelligence of the British public. The intelligence of the British public is not in question, but they expect subjects like these to be dealt with extensively in Parliament and for Parliament to act on their behalf. They expect Parliament to reach a conclusion about the balance of advantage.
Just over a year ago I visited Denmark immediately after the first referendum there. I was told that a major factor had been a speech by Mr. Delors which had received headlines in that country. He had apparently indicated that the small countries in the European Communities did not count for much. Of course, that speech did not appear in the press here because we are not a small country, so we were not affected. But it was clear that many Danes were appalled and infuriated just before the referendum and voted accordingly.
In France, where the recent referendum was not required constitutionally, it is clear, as has already been stated, that many voters were registering discontent with the president and the government of the day. The subsequent general election there appears to have confirmed that.
If there is not a clear, identifiable issue, voting in a referendum is likely to reflect feelings on different, current matters of concern. I happened to be on the Opposition Front Bench in 1975 and 1979 in this House and was therefore participating in the discussion here as well as taking part in the campaigns. In both of them the political parties were divided and I found myself speaking on platforms in different parts of the country with parliamentarians from the other

281
main parties. I do not regard the present situation as comparable and consider that a referendum would be out of place.
I am sorry that on this I part company with my noble friend Lord Blake. We have known each other since 1940 when we were together in the Army and I am an admirer of his scholarship, biographies and writings on recent history. He would like to see the referendum used more often in this country. I believe that it should be resorted to only when there is a clear, definite issue on which Parliament wishes to take a yes or no opinion from the electorate. One House of Parliament has already made it clear that it does not wish to have a referendum. Other speakers have dealt with the parliamentary objections to accepting the new clause. They are not constitutional. They are matters of relationships between the two Houses and also what is wise and prudent to do. To that I add the difficulty of identifying a clear issue and the likelihood that voting would in the event be influenced by topics little connected with Maastricht.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blake for introducing this amendment with such clarity and such knowledge. I shall confine my remarks under three headings: first, the erosion of the power of Parliament and of our courts; secondly, some comments on the referendum; and, thirdly, the democratic deficit.
Because of all the debates which I have attended in total silence, I have learnt that some people think that some phrases began at Stuttgart. They did not. I have, therefore, in order to see the sweep of what has happened, been through all the debates, all the legal advice and much of the Committee stage, to see how the powers of the Community have gained against the powers of our Parliament. I have been absolutely astonished at the extent to which things are moving towards the Community and against our Parliament and against our courts.
I should say that, like many other people, I started out as an idealist on the European question, in the sense that the separate countries of Europe have developed the accepted standards of civilisation. They also developed the method of how to bring the advantages of science to the benefit of people in the industrial revolution. So I started out an idealist in philosophy, an idealist in practical terms, feeling that we had so much to give and that, therefore, we should try to co-operate together to give it. Then, of course, as always, idealism has to be tempered by the knowledge that Europe has in fact spawned the two worst tyrannies the world has known. So we must not give up our defences or our strengths lest that should happen again.
Looking back, I have seen that the pattern has been that many, many vague phrases in preambles and in things like declarations have, all of a sudden, been given authority when we thought they were harmless. For example, as long ago as at The Hague in 1969, before we were in the Community, it declared its intention of moving towards economic and monetary
282
union. In 1972, at the very big meeting just before we went in, which our representatives attended, a great deal of the idealism was taken further when progressive realisation of economic and monetary union was decided on. There was also a decision to reform the whole complex of the relations of member states into a European union before the end of the decade.
All this was decided. It was in Eurospeak before we entered in 1973. So often, when the new Eurospeak declarations came up, and I said, "I want to get that out", they said, "You can't. Your Government has already agreed it". We then had to concentrate on seeing that Eurospeak never came into the substantive clauses of our law.
In 1978 the European Monetary System was started and we joined then—not the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, but the European Monetary System. These things went steadily on. Then came—and it has so often been referred to today that I must refer to it—the Single European Act. I was surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Howe say that it was not really one of our objectives to have the Single European Act. If I may say so, the Common Market was one of the things which I believed we were joining Europe for. We wanted our industrialists to have as large a market as Americans had so that they could compete; so that we could get prosperity. We also wanted to be an example of getting down internal barriers in Europe, not to put them up outside the edges of the European Community, as is happening now, but as an example to the rest of the world to get their barriers down. So there was right in my belief as to what the Community was for: that and the genuine co-operation, voluntarily given, in order to build not only a new Europe but a new internationalism and a new world.
So I came next to the Single European Act 1986. I thought we could do it without an inter-governmental conference. Indeed, I voted against an intergovernmental conference. But then of course it is by simple majority, and I am afraid that we had to get into it. But it was to get the internal market. We would not have got that internal market unless we had gone to more majority voting. We could never have got our insurance companies into Germany. They would not allow it. We could never have got cabotage for our lorries or our ships. They would not allow it. So because we wanted something we had to give something.
We gave majority voting strictly for the purposes of the internal market and nothing else. It had already been in the Treaty of Rome for a very long time. Of course the price that we had to pay in the Treaty of Rome for wanting the Common Market was the common agricultural policy and the common commercial policy. So, yes, we did give more qualified majority voting for a strict purpose. We did give many assurances and were given many assurances. The Council of Ministers decided that some matters were so important that they must be decided by unanimous voting: tax matters; relationships between employer and employee; and immigrants from third countries moving across Europe. The Council of Ministers

283
decided that—not qualified majority voting but unanimity. And we went away in good faith. Then what happened?
I suppose I made a fundamental error which my tutor often told me I should not do. He said, "You know, sometimes when you are negotiating, you tend to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Never do that. Make the assessment of the man opposite you as he is in his shoes, and you will get a very, very different view". I thought that perhaps our idea of good faith and what the Council of Ministers had decided about unanimity would be upheld by the Commission. After all, they were European. Not a bit of it. That has not been used merely to get free trade and free goods moving about the Community; it has been used to get all kinds of social things which are no business of the Commission or the Community but which should be for us to decide here.
Yes, we got our fingers burnt—first, because they produced a whole rash of regulations that they should never have had; and, secondly, because they did not honour the unanimity rule. It is something that I will never forget. Yes, we got our fingers burnt. Do not now go back to that same fire with a much bigger treaty with many more powers and get both your arms and perhaps your head burnt as well. That is the lesson to be learnt from that.
We had then been very careful still to keep the objective of European union carefully in the preamble. We did nothing further in the Single European Act. I would not have it. I knew, as did my noble friend Lord Lawson, who made such an excellent speech, that we had always regarded that as the backdoor to political union and the European Union. And we did nothing further about European union. But what did European union mean? I was very happy to say that I agreed totally with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, when he was Prime Minister, who said he was quite happy to agree in theory to European union. What did it mean? He said:
"It is a very desirable objective, but there was no agreement on what it meant at the Paris summit two years ago. At the meeting of Foreign Ministers … [in Germany] at Easter, my right hon. Friend [the Foreign Secretary] asked each of the other eight what they meant by it. There was no agreement about the meaning of that phrase. It means what individual countries or individuals want it to mean. Therefore, we were quite happy to go along with the reference to European union".
Of course it had no particular meaning. On that I agreed with him. But what we were unaware of—or insufficiently aware of—was that people had put in those words and phrases with the intention of clothing them with a federal meaning at the earliest opportunity. That indeed is what has happened.
So we come to Maastricht. Some people say that Maastricht does not have a big constitutional issue attached to it. Let us look at what the treaty itself says:
"By this Treaty, the High Contracting Parties establish … a European Union … This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
It creates the Union. It gives it all the structures of a sovereign state. That is why we have citizenship, European and monetary union, common defence policies, common foreign policy, and so on. It is something quite different. In addition, it adds many
284
more powers which can be decided by qualified majority voting. One should be very careful before extending those powers, except for a specific purpose. With qualified majority voting, the Commission has the only power—monopoly power—of proposing legislation. No one else has it. Only the Commission can propose legislation. It can do it by a simple majority vote: nine votes to eight. It can bring forward something to go to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is under majority voting; and there are 111 other examples of areas in which majority voting can apply.
In order to stop that, if our Parliament does not want it, or we do not want it, we have to find a blocking minority of one big country plus three small ones. It is more and more difficult to do it. There are 111 new areas of qualified majority voting. More and more legislation will not be made in open and free debate in two Houses of Parliament, but will be made behind closed doors without any debate; behind the Commission and the Council, without people knowing precisely what is being discussed. More and more decisions will be made which are contrary to the will of our representatives of the people and of this Chamber too.
So, yes, the degree to which that is happening and the speed at which it is happening is such, and this new European Union is sufficient, in my view, to ask the people: "Is this what you want?" What we are saying to the people is: "Look, it is no good coming to question our Members of Parliament (or me, when I was there) about this. We have given away that power to legislate. I disapprove of that law. But I am no longer accountable to you, the elector. I have given away your accountability. I have given it away". And what is more, under the treaty, and under the way in which the courts are interpreting their powers—they are taking more and more interpreting powers and they are taking them wider and wider. Who would have thought when we had equal pay in the original Treaty of Rome that the court would interpret it not only as equal pay but as equal rights to redundancy, equal rights to pension, equal rights in private pensions and equal age of retirement? That is a colossal extension of meaning without the precise words in the treaty.
So we are again not only giving away the power to make legislation—parliamentary sovereignty is being diminished—but we are giving away more and more as the courts interpret a bigger and bigger treaty. So, as well as legislation behind closed doors, we are getting justice behind closed doors. You do not get justice behind closed doors. There are 13 members of the court and only three have had previous judicial experience. They sit behind closed doors, whereas our courts sit in the open. They have only one decision; you never get a dissentient judgment. That is not justice to us. This is a very serious matter indeed. There comes a time when you have to stop it.
The authority has been extended in Maastricht over 11 new areas. The Commission has authority over 11 new areas of government. Of course all of them were

285
very pleased about it. I would never have given it to them. They have enough powers already. Their powers should be diminished in many ways.
The situation will get worse if we do not stop it or ask the people about it. It is their sovereign powers that are being diminished. It will get worse by the review in 1996. It is not an open review. It is a review to bring about a much closer European union and a much closer federal state, only they will not come out openly with it.
Let us have a look at the second point: the case for a referendum. I must say that I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. I am horrified at the number of people who say, "Oh, the people will not understand". If noble Lords can explain clearly, the people can understand clearly. So let us improve the explanation and not shroud the Eurospeak in a drizzle of strange meaning. The people can understand. I begin to wonder how they ever decide how to vote in an election. Of course they can understand. So let that bit of arrogance and conceit be put away. Of course we can get a referendum up and running if need be.
My thesis is the degree to which things are running away from parliamentary sovereignty and our form of justice, so that this House, this High Court of Parliament, is no longer the deciding factor on many matters of law. Indeed, consider laws such as the merchant shipping law: when that law was passed, no matter how high the legal advice or the attorney's advice, no one said that it was inadequate for the task. No one said that. But when their Lordships properly said that we must ask the European Court whether this rule, this new law passed by Parliament, will prevail or whether European Community law will prevail, they were told that European Community law would prevail. That will happen more and more.
My noble friend spoke of many things concerning referenda. I confess that I still do not like having a referendum regularly. When you come to a constitutional matter, you can recognise one; you can recognise when the erosion of parliamentary powers and justice powers is so great. It is very difficult to describe but you can recognise it. You can take each one and say, "This is suitable for a referendum and more than suitable because it is the powers of the people that are being eroded. We should have one and we can have a special Bill". It is much better to accept that the referendum is an appropriate instrument and the more powers go away, the more we have in fact to ask the people.
I do not think that there is really any difficulty. It is not a matter of confidence in the Government. Have we not debated for long enough in this Chamber and the other place to know that this issue goes straight across parties, right across parties? As a matter of fact I believe that it would probably have helped all parties if there had been a referendum much earlier. It is not our fault that there was not one. It would have been a very great help and we would have got a clear decision from the people when we should indeed have had one.
There is the third point: the democratic deficit. Everyone accepts that there is one. We are used to
286
having full democracy. We fought two wars in order that democracy might survive and extend. We are diminishing democracy, diminishing our parliamentary sovereignty, diminishing our parliamentary institutions, diminishing the significance of the vote, if Members of Parliament are not accountable, diminishing the significance of the Member of Parliament, diminishing the significance of the parliamentary institutions—diminishing democracy and substituting bureaucracy for it.
Who are we to go and lecture people about the benefits of democracy when we are going the other way? We are boasting but, heaven knows, on the other side of the old Iron Curtain they have got rid of their bureaucracy. Here we are increasing ours in western Europe. It is ridiculous. It is no good saying that parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy is going on in the same old way. It is not. That is a major change and the people are the sufferers.
Just before I came to the House I was very interested to read Vibert's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 1992 about the effect of Maastricht. He was for it. He said:
"Members should be aware that the end result of the Commission proposals would be the eventual reduction of national parliaments to performing essentially agency roles for the central authorities".
What do we need 650 Members of Parliament for—or a Second Chamber such as this? But that is the objective of many who are aiming at a federal state. The people must be warned and asked in time. They can understand the big points when they are put clearly. I think we have a duty to do that.
Over the centuries the people and the character of our people have shaped our parliamentary institutions, and not the other way round. People have been the great bulwark against over-mighty rulers and the surest defence of the rights of individuals. Their powers are the heart of our nationhood. The majority of our people want Britain to be in Europe, and so do I. They want to keep intact our Parliament too and they do not want to diminish its powers or its authority or its prestige. In my view, we have surrendered too many powers already. We should surrender no more unless the people wish it. It is the people's turn to speak. It is their powers of which we are the custodians.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have just heard a most impressive speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I am among those who feel that our proper role in Europe is to be at the centre of the policy-making forum. I was most impressed with what she told us about the role that she played in the negotiation of the Single European Act and the creation of the single market, a project which was carried forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as a commissioner at that time.
If that is one of the most important things that we have achieved as a result of our participation in the European Community, the question arises of whether the Motion before us would enhance that objective or diminish it. I very much fear that it would diminish it. It would certainly throw it into uncertainty. As we

287
heard from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, endorsed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, the timing of a referendum. let alone what the outcome might be, would be such that we should have to wait until February, March or even later next year before we knew the result.
That would throw the whole of the European Community into turmoil. There would be confusion. Inevitably, there would be economic repercussions. At the moment this country is beginning to move out of the recession. Yesterday, we heard the encouraging news that industrial production moved up at a faster rate in May than anyone had anticipated. Unfortunately, at the same time as we seem to be moving out of recession, some of our trading partners in Europe are moving into, or are still in, recession. That is not in our interest. Our interest is for our trading partners also to move ahead because the hulk of our trade takes place in the European Community. This seems to me the worst time to throw doubt and uncertainty over the whole European Community.
In Tokyo substantial strides have been made in trying to resolve the current trade round. We need to complement that by making sure that the single market moves ahead. We must therefore avoid the uncertainty and confusion that would be caused by re-opening the issue at this very late stage. I do not believe that this is the appropriate juncture at which to raise the question of a referendum. Had it been appropriate it should have been raised much earlier, as indeed the noble Baroness herself said.
Our proper role is to go ahead with the treaty; to resume our formative and positive role at the centre of Europe; and, above all, to make sure that the single market develops in strength and co-operation with the rest of the world.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I now feel the agony of Members of the other place who wait, and wait, and wait. Furthermore, I remember some years ago calling the honourable Member for Bolsover in a speech on aid to minority parties. He made the same kind of powerful speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. When I looked round to call the next speaker, absolutely no one stood up. I sense that the steam has gone out of the debate this evening also.
I intervene briefly and with some reluctance. I do not feel particularly happy, because I share many of the views of the noble Baroness and I have such a high regard and affection for my distinguished predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and also for the noble Lord, Lord Blake. However, I do not agree with them on the issue of the referendum.
Our constitution is built on the responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, and Parliament is a body of elected representatives chosen by the people to discuss and deliberate government proposals. We have heard Edmund Burke quoted too often, but it is worth repeating that it should be the happiness and glory of parliamentary representatives to live in the strictest union and the closest correspondence with their constituents. But, he said, they owe them not only their industry but also their judgment. In practice I
288
believe that referenda damage the relationship between Members and their constituents and therefore diminish parliamentary sovereignty. I care passionately for the sovereignty of Parliament.
As has been said, referenda do riot necessarily determine questions once and for all. I was an Opposition Whip at the time of the referendum in 1975, which was designed to obtain a firm and final verdict on EEC membership. It is worth reminding ourselves, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, did, of the reasons for that referendum. It was because the government party was in disarray and tearing itself asunder. I well recollect that in the referendum at that time 16 members of the Cabinet campaigned actively for membership of the EEC and seven campaigned equally actively against it—one of them being my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn. Much the same can be said on the referendum on devolution for Scotland and Wales. It is a matter of record that the Labour Party and the government were deeply split on that issue also. Today the question of Europe still divides both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in both Houses.
I respect the integrity of those who advocate a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. But I believe that it is too late. I agree with what has been said by a number of noble Lords. If there was to have been a referendum, it should have been, as the noble Baroness herself indicated, in 1986. I well remember at that time a senior member of the Labour Party coming to see me at the Speaker's House and saying, "Mr. Speaker, you have simply got to stop this. It is signing away our freedom and what is more, it is being rammed through the House of Commons on a guillotine Motion".
I do not believe in referenda, and I do not believe in timetable Motions. They are not good for Parliament and Bills that are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny are always the source of later difficulties. I repeat that I feel deeply about parliamentary democracy, and I cannot support the amendment before us.
I conclude by reminding noble Lords of Alan Paton's, Cry, the Beloved Country. He wrote of the fear of bondage and the bondage of fear. That is the feeling of many sincere and patriotic people in our country. Equally, I believe that we cannot go back. We are in the European Community and in my view we should seek to play a full and dominant part in its future. Future generations will blame us if we do not. As a group of young people said to me this weekend when I was discussing this issue, "Lord Weatherill, let's go for it". My Lords, I think that is about right!
6.36 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I have sat in Parliament both here and in another place on the Tory Benches under six separate Tory Leaders. It is the conduct, style and integrity of the one who held the leadership for the shortest time that I commend to this House; that is, my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel. Not for him criticism, overt or covert, of his successors. Not for him caballing and coffee-housing to thwart the policies of his successors. Not for him

289
resentment at the loss of position; not for him sulking, but service. It is his example of leadership to which the Tory party should look instead of what we have become used to; that is, criticism time after time of a successor by a predecessor.
My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel is no longer able to be in his place. I suspect that he would not have enjoyed what we have witnessed here today: a party that he led so bravely and honestly yet so silent when he was dismissed as he was. All he did was serve his successors without criticism and without attacking their competence, their failures and the things they had betrayed.
The present Prime Minister, who was quickly promoted by the then leader to high office after a short apprenticeship, must be reflecting on the truth of what was said by Bruce Lockhart:
"The hidden dagger in politics is to regard the friend of today as the enemy of tomorrow".
What in effect those who move the amendment do—this is the real reason for it—is to make a sustained attack upon the present Administration and the present Prime Minister. We have witnessed that all through the weeks that have passed both in another place and in this House. It is an attack on the successor's performance, a successor who negotiated, apparently, failure; who gave away powers that should never have been given away. I do not understand how that excuse can be offered to the House by those who were in a position of power at the time of the Single European Act. I remember very well in 1975 the words of my then newly-elected leader about a referendum. I remember her maiden speech in which she said:
"Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/75; col. 314.]
I very much followed my leader's views about a referendum. I do not understand why suddenly, when power disappears, the position adopted when power is held also disappears. Therefore, there was to be no referendum in 1975. However, the view of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, prevailed, and there was one. There was no referendum in 1986. I hope that your Lordships will look carefully at the explanation of the Single European Act. That is the definitive revolutionary treaty from which we have progressed since 1975. This is the catalyst from which Maastricht must flow. It has created a flow of people, goods, services and capital across Europe. It can make the single market possible only with the introduction of new political procedures; that is, qualified majority voting.
What were the objectives of the Single European Act? There was a progressive realisation of economic and monetary union. That entailed signature by the United Kingdom. The high contracting parties were jointly to formulate and implement a European foreign policy. That also entailed signature by the United Kingdom. It was the British who, under the then administration, pressed for the establishment of a political secretariat in Brussels. That was the decisive moment in the evolution of the European Community movement since the 1970s. Were the British people
290
consulted? They were not. We are told that they should be consulted now. Why were they not consulted at that time when the power rested in the hands of the noble Baroness, who has addressed us so eloquently today? The Act was pushed through by guillotine—those who have suffered in another place will know what that means—by the then chairman of the party and the Prime Minister who now want a referendum. Maastricht was an inevitable consequence of the decisive and revolutionary Single European Act.
What is the reality behind the facade of this amendment debate? It is about power. It is not so much power that corrupts but the withdrawal of power that pains. Let us not be duped or used by those who are engaging in a political vendetta to destroy this Government and the Prime Minister. I hope that we will have none of it, and none of them.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, I am bound to say, as one who has been here throughout the Committee stage—and, indeed, all stages of this Bill into the small hours of the night—that I cannot recall having had the benefit of his contribution, or indeed his attention to any of the detailed debates that have so far taken place in this House. Of course, the noble and learned Lord has every right to speak and I am very pleased to hear his contribution this afternoon.
Before thanking the House for the kind indulgence that it periodically extends to me throughout these proceedings I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, on his excellent maiden speech. It seems to me that his speech went to the crux of the matter. He is the first person of substance on the other Benches (not that they are not members of substance in the ordinary way) to admit that a single European currency and economic monetary union mean what Sir Edward Heath reiterated three or four months ago; that is, the establishment of a unitary state. What we are discussing today is the progress that we are making towards that unitary state.
My views have been consistent ever since 1967. I knew exactly what was going to happen and which way the ratchet would turn. Every time a new inter-governmental conference has been held the ratchet has turned a little bit further. If by mischance we ratify the Maastricht Treaty, in 1996 we shall be told, "Well, you agreed to the principles in Maastricht. What are you arguing about?" We shall then have the unitary state upon us.
I am not surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, extended his kind patronage to his former subordinate in the matter. Quite clearly, he was very impressed by it, as we all were. The same observations apply to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who was kind enough to inform the House that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, was at one time a junior Minister.
I have a confession to make to the House. Shortly before the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, in another place the late right honourable

291
Aneurin Bevan said to me, "Donald, we have a new MP by the name of Jenkins coming along. Please look after him and introduce him to the ways of the House". I did so. The noble Lord has been kind enough to remind me that I helped him considerably. I regret that I went a step too far!
We have heard a lot of argument today about the constitutional aspects of a possible referendum. There has been an enormous amount of contortion. In particular, I listened to the learned dissertation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who entertained us in the intricacies of the whole business. But this is not really the point at issue. We are not concerned with the technicalities. The reason why the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition do not want a referendum is because they are afraid that they may lose it. It is as simple as that. There is no need to go into the awful legal complexities.
It is depressing but I can understand many Members of this place and another place who are involved in commerce and industry wishing to co-operate within an ever-widening market. I can also understand the desirability of establishing closer and more friendly relations with Europe. I have played my own modest part. For four years I was a Member of the European Parliament, and nobody here has reproached me for that. I am all for the maximum co-operation. However, I am bound to point out that the results have been disappointing. So far the European experiment has been a complete failure. A number of friendly relations have been established, and I rejoice in that. However, in terms of mass unemployment, production, productivity, world exports and the ever-increasing differences within Europe between poorer and richer nations, so far it has failed.
I hope that the European experiment will succeed and I hope that by further co-operation within Europe, by sovereign nations such as our own seeking an ever-wider degree of co-operation, we shall succeed. But what makes anyone think for one moment that the problems that have defied individual nations, acting as individual nations—decisions arrived at by very skilled politicians aided by experts, including the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his seven economic advisers, who have been unable to solve those problems in their own countries so far—will be solved on a European scale by a bureaucracy in Brussels composed of people of no really conspicuous qualifications, problems which our own skilled Ministers of all parties have not so far been able to solve at home? What makes them think, or what makes anyone think, that the problems of this vast continent of some 350 million people can be solved by a bureaucracy in Brussels responsible to no one, or by independent bankers responsible to no one? So far the history of bankers in regard to world economies, and indeed in regard to domestic economies, including our own, has not been exactly impressive.
What we are really failing to face up to is the fact that our own prosperity and fortunes, our own relations with other countries and the development of our own culture are fundamentally dependent upon
292
us, the British people, whether or not we are in Europe and whether or not we have closer relationships. The fault—and there are many faults—lies with us. One of the discouraging features about the original entry of Britain into the then Common Market was the oft-expressed sentiment which is still echoed—I have heard it echoed in this House over the past fortnight—"There is nowhere else for us to go". In other words, the reason why we found it necessary to take all these steps, the reason why we are seeking to perpetuate and indeed enlarge them into other spheres. is that we have no basic self-confidence in ourselves and in our own country. That has led to the situation in which we now find ourselves.
I well remember—since the Single European Act has been mentioned, though I ventured to dissent at that time with some of the sentiments that were uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher—going along to the Second Reading in another place of the then Single European Bill and hearing one of my honourable friends in another place saying that the Bill did not present any great difficulty in principle and offering more or less the complete co-operation of the Opposition in getting the Single European Bill, as it then was, through. Two days later I went to a meeting of my own parliamentary party, even though I was a Member of this House, and said, "You want your brains examined if you are going to agree to allow this Bill to go through unopposed". And so it came about that there was a reversal, for which I am only mildly responsible—I was merely articulating what I thought was the general feeling of the time—and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and myself fought the Bill in this House. There were some distinguished. abstentions from some of my distinguished colleagues. There were even one or two who voted at that time against the party here on a three-line Whip. But that was the fashion. After all, the present Leader of my party in 1972 voted against his own party on a three-line Whip and supported Sir Edward Heath. So I was following a respectable precedent.
This Bill—the Maastricht Bill—is something that ought to have been examined much more thoroughly before final assent was sought. I think I am right in suggesting to your Lordships that the proceedings on the Bill in this House have been a very great credit indeed to the House. One has only to compare—I am referring now to those who opposed me as well as those who agreed with me—the quality of debate in this place with that in another place. I believe that the debates in this House have been of a very high quality indeed.
It is very dangerous, I always think, when the Government and the Opposition agree together. It is always highly ominous when the establishment, or the would-be establishment, get together in such a shining unity of purpose. Those are the times when it pays ordinary people—and Back-Benchers like myself—to have their antennae out a little. In this instance we on this Bench as well as those on other Benches think that the country ought to be given an opportunity to pass some verdict upon it.
Some noble Lords have suggested that it is too complicated an issue for the electorate of this country

293
to understand. That displays a contempt for our fellow-countrymen which is not appropriate from people who are not altogether too clever themselves. It is for that reason, across the party boundaries and to the country at large, and with such sincerity as I am capable of conveying in what I have said and in what I have said consistently for a very long time, way back since 1967, that I ask your Lordships to support the amendment.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, mentioned the fact that in 1972 it was considered that we had nowhere else to go. The fact of the matter is that in 1993 the United Kingdom has nowhere else to go. It has to stay within the European Community. But it also has to be supported by a Parliament which supports the Government in their negotiations at Community level so that the Government can act on behalf of the interests of the British people without being undermined by those who seek to destroy the treaty which the Government have been negotiating.
I want to make four brief points which have not all been covered by other noble Lords on both sides of the argument who have widely debated this issue already. My first question is: do we know that the people of Britain want a referendum? In my belief they do not. We have already had the vote in the House of Commons by Members who have been elected by the people of this country. We all know—it has been repeated several times—that there was a large majority against having a referendum.
Secondly, there has been an opportunity for some people to show whether they wanted a referendum. Admittedly, it was what one might call a trial spin, but there was, for regrettable reasons, a by-election in Newbury in May 1993 when the treaty was perfectly well available to everyone. There is an electorate in Newbury of about 75,000. The pro-referendum candidate—he stood as a pro-referendum candidate—received 601 votes. There was another pro-referendum candidate—but on a different issue—who received 250 votes. So there were 851 votes from 75,000 voters. I do not think that that shows that the British people, at any rate at that stage, were anxious to have a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
I would refer to the telephone referendum which was run, with the greatest respect, by my noble friend Lady Thatcher and colleagues from this House. I understand that there were 90,000 replies as a result of a daily publication in the Sun, which has a circulation of about 3 million. It was circulated, as I understand it from the figures I have been given, for 94 days. In my calculation there were 282 million opportunities for the electors of this country to say whether they wanted a referendum. In fact, 90,000 replied and very understandably about 93 per cent. of the 90,000 were in favour of a referendum. The figures which we have so far do not give serious evidence to this House that the British people are clamouring to have a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty.
My third point is this: I have not had the benefit of
294
the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Blake as my constitutional history tutor. But I was taught that the fundamental principle of the British constitution is the sovereignty of Parliament. Therefore, I regard in all seriousness any action which seeks to undermine that parliamentary sovereignty as an attack on that sovereignty. I believe that a referendum does precisely that.
I do not believe that it redounds to the credit of this unelected House to vote in favour of a referendum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that we have had debates of a very high standard from all sides of the House during the Second Reading, Committee and now the Report stage of this Bill. I believe that we have respected each other's views throughout the House. We have had valuable debates on and explanations of the meaning of the treaty. I do not believe that there is any necessity to go further than that. Anybody who wants to follow what has been discussed in this House has only to read the Official Report.
Very regrettably, the press has talked a great deal about all kinds of undesirable issues that go on in the world and in this country, but as far as I know it has not seen fit to publish daily the proceedings—I repeat, the proceedings—of either House when the main issues were being discussed. For instance, we had the answer about the meaning of subsidiarity given by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the many excellent replies which we received from our own Front Bench, particularly from my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey. As we all know, many times she was submitted to cross-examination, and sometimes even examined crossly, to state what her position was.
My fourth point is that so far nobody has said what the constitutional changes are in the Maastricht Treaty. All the time we are talking about the great and violent changes in our constitution. Anyone who listened to the brilliant speech of my noble and learned friend—if I may so call him—Lord Wilberforce will know that there is no great constitutional leap at this time. There are matters for the future.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lawson on his maiden speech. He mentioned a single currency. If anyone ever wanted a referendum, is not that the kind of issue on which one should have a referendum? I am not in favour of a referendum, but it should be on a single issue which can be put to the people: "Do you want your pound changed into an ecu or not?" That is an issue which people can understand.
In the treaty the United Kingdom, through the negotiating powers of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, secured an opt-out, or an opt-in, whichever way one wishes to look at it, of having a single currency. That issue will have to be decided by an Act of Parliament. It is at that stage that people can say, "We want to discuss this with the people of Britain", and we can go ahead. The same question arises with subsidiarity. It is a brake on the powers of the Commission and centralisation. Although we say it is a brake, it will depend on this Parliament to ensure that the principle is enforced and implemented both through our own scrutiny committees and by going

295
very carefully through the draft directives. They will also go to the scrutiny committee in another place. It is up to Parliament to decide whether we can make subsidiarity effective and, through our Ministers, to see that it is carried out through the Council of Ministers.
I believe that we have not paid total attention to all the issues which arise as regards a referendum. I have put forward these four points modestly in the hope that we shall not in fact vote in favour of a referendum.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, as a mere Cambridge economist, and not even one of the seven wise men, I am prepared to defer absolutely on constitutional matters to the brace of Oxford dons who have spoken already. Notwithstanding what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce told us at Second Reading, what the noble Lords, Lord Blake and Lord Beloff, are saying is that, taken together, they agree that Maastricht, piled on the process which has been going on since the Single European Act or before, makes up a constitutional innovation. I would say that it is a constitutional revolution.
In the 10 days of patient and good-natured debate that went on at Second Reading, at Committee stage and now on Report, if there was any gleam of consensus uniting the various sides, it was the support for unfettered trade in a widening single market. On that we were almost all agreed. My own deep conviction is that the promise of spreading peace and prosperity through free trade is already darkened by the ceaseless politicisation and imperialism of the Brussels Commission and the European Court.
Back in 1972 my very old friend of those days, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, declared in the following words:
"The position is that the ultimate supremacy of Parliament will not be affected"
I believe that he was right in this sense: all the subsequent massive loss of sovereignty and, if you will, self-government have not been stolen from us by wicked foreigners, but freely, if reluctantly, bargained away by our politicians in the hope of getting something back, or at any rate appeasing our European partners. Maastricht confirms absolutely that their appetite for our sovereignty is insatiable. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, Parliament may still remain supreme, but it remains supreme over a narrowing estate which Maastricht will shrink still further.
I have a new reason for wanting a referendum which should cause rejoicing in some quarters. It is that so far the construction of European Union has been the handiwork of a narrow political class—I would say an exclusive elite—who boast of their linguistic skills and their fastidious nose for fine claret rather than for a pint of good old wallop. On the recent resignation of Mr. Garel-Jones one columnist wrote that he was not so much our man in Europe as Brussels' top man in our Foreign Office.
It is true that there is a great deal of ignorance in the country about the details of the Maastricht Treaty,
296
but my education has been so advanced over the 10 days of debate in your Lordships' House that. I believe that the public could soon be better instructed. I regard it as displaying a profoundly anti-democratic temper to scorn the ability of the voters likewise to learn from a referendum campaign that I should have thought might have taken two or three weeks. The warning that it would go on until next Easter prompted the huffing and puffing by my noble friend Lord Allen about the form of a referendum. That suggests that we might contract the whole thing out and get it over with by the autumn.
My closing thought is that, whatever view we take on Maastricht, we all now know and understand that this heart of Europe about which we all speak has been and will remain a strenuous battlefield. With or without this Bill which we are reporting on today, Her Majesty's Government will have to continue resisting the federalists, corporatists, socialists, protectionists and regulationists, and not forgetting M. Delors' flat-earthists.
Our people have kept faith with the Common Market, partly because they voted for it in 1975. Whether we go further or stay put, the Government will need the assurance and authority that can come only from popular consent. Since all of us who have spoken might wish that we were a great deal younger, I want to tell your Lordships of a letter I received from an Oxford University Conservative, who sent it to The Times for publication without success. It should interest Conservatives sitting behind the Government Whip. He wrote on 4th June:
"As the House of Lords approaches its debate on the Maastricht Treaty, their Lordships would perhaps do well to consider the opinions of those who will have to live with the consequences of their decision. During the last three years, the Oxford Union has rejected European political integration on four occasions with large and increasing majorities. The Campaign for an Independent Britain has become Oxford's second largest and fastest growing political organisation. Over the last two years it has numbered among its members a majority of Union officers and every President and officer of the Oxford University Conservative Association. A similar situation exists in universities across the country".
His last two sentences state:
"It is to be hoped that the Government will come to take account of the views of those who are likely to become the next generation of Conservative MPs. It is liikewise to be hoped that the House of Lords will recall its role as guardian of the constitution and of the national interest free from the vicissitudes of ephemeral party convenience".
It is no surprise that the writer of that letter has since discovered that he has acquired a double first in the recent examinations. What is even more important than whether the pros or the antis win the day is that the still sovereign people should accept the outcome as their chosen future with which they and their children will have to live.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, quoted from his Oxford correspondent. I always understood that Oxford was the home of lost causes, and so it seems. I was the only Liberal Member of another place in 1972 who voted against our accession to the Treaty of Rome. I was the only Liberal to vote against the European Communities Bill. I did so, not because I was

297
anti-European as such, but because I believed that the terms and the timing of our going in were not in this country's interest. I believe that I was right. However, be that as it may.
If ever there was a case for a referendum, it was then. We were changing this country's constitution. We were becoming part of the Treaty of Rome which provided for, "an ever closer union". Those are the words used. Of course, Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome provided for the domination of British law by European law. Clause 2 of the Bill that we passed in the other place provided for the application of European law in our courts. I subscribe to the view that at that point Britain lost its sovereignty. Of course it did: we were making our law subsidiary to European law. That is the first point.
The second point is that the Government, in their 1970 election manifesto, had an oblique reference to the possibility of exploring the conditions upon which we might consider entering the European Community. That was the only reference. So, if ever there was a case for a referendum, it was then. Let us take what happened, and here I rely upon that magnificent precis of the legal position provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on Second Reading. He pointed out how the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty are, in themselves, a natural progression from what happened when we acceded to the Treaty of Rome. The die was cast in 1972. The moving finger having writ moves on, and never once returns. So it is no use complaining now.
There were no great cries in 1972 for a referendum, although I was in favour of it, and the Liberal Party Assembly in 1969 had passed a resolution in favour of having a referendum on whether we entered the Common Market. There was no suggestion, least of all from government circles at that time—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was a member of that government—that there should be a referendum. The situation represented a much greater break with our tradition and a much more important undermining of the sovereignty of Parliament than anything that has happened since. Once we were on that journey, on that train, having missed the opportunity to join in at the Conference of Messina, and failing to become a founder member of the Common Market, our tactics thereafter seemed to be one of trying to get on the train, slowing down the train and trying, as it were, to change the conditions of travel. It was of no use.
With the Maastricht Treaty which is a natural consequence of our accession to the Treaty of Rome, the situation was different. In their election manifesto, the Government were wholly in favour and explained the Maastricht Treaty to the electorate. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats did the same and were all in favour. The election took place only last year. The Treaty of Maastricht was topical at the time of the election. It cannot now be argued that there should be a referendum.
Basically, let me make it clear to your Lordships, I am in favour of referenda had we a written constitution or a more structured system of government. I am in favour of having a referendum on
298
any issue which involves a basic change in our constitutional position, but the truth is that in this country a referendum has been used as a political expedient. It was used as a political expedient by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, when he was Mr. Harold Wilson, to get himself off the political hook of the dissension in his own party.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, no.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that that is right. Mr. Wilson was forced into it by Mr. Wedgwood Benn. It seems to me that President Mitterrand in France took it upon himself to order a referendum as a matter of political expediency to get himself off a particular political hook. But there is no justification, surely, for this House, an unelected House, to suggest now, when we have had the clearest possible indication from the elected Chamber with a huge majority against a referendum, that we should say to it that it should have a referendum. It is asking for trouble.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. We are a parliamentary democracy with our own tradition. Here, I shall echo the noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his introduction when he quoted John Locke on the right of constituents to be consulted. That of course was written in the 18th century. The right then was surely to consult constituents although of course many Members of Parliament represented rotten boroughs and had no constituents. Nevertheless, he was not suggesting a referendum.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, referred to all his parliamentary heroes and enumerated them. As I recollect it, not one of them ever suggested that we should use referenda instead of normal parliamentary processes. His hero, Lord Attlee, who he said smiled benignly at Mr. Lloyd George and Winston Churchill in the Lobby, declared himself on a referendum in the most scathing terms in 1946. That was referred to on Second Reading.
It seems to me that this is entirely a wrecking amendment. It has no justification whatever. If ever there were to be a referendum in this country the need for it should be decided by the elected Chamber and by no one else.
7.20 p.m.
The Marquess of Salisbury: My Lords, I intervene only briefly because much has been said about the constitutional relationship between the two Houses. Much of that is based on what are known as the Salisbury Rules. Your Lordships know the circumstances in which they arose. I do not believe for one moment that at that time they were considered to be anything other than a temporary expedient.
Perhaps I may digress. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the kind tributes which they paid to my father a few weeks ago. My family and I are most grateful.
Too little has been said about the part played by Lord Addison, the then Leader of the House. Without his co-operation the rules could never have worked. I

299
am fortified in my belief that they were thought to be only a temporary expedient by a conversation which I heard when I joined Lord Addison and my father, who lunched in the guest part of your Lordships' dining room before the debates took place. It was perfectly clear from the conversation and the haggling to obtain concessions that nothing except the main issue came within the purlieu of the Salisbury Rules. My memory of what my father told me confirmed that.
The noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his opening remarks referred to various occasions when a referendum was almost called for. An occasion which he did not mention but which is important is quoted in J. L. Garvin's The Life of Joseph Chamberlain. It was the occasion of the Irish home rule Bill in 1893. At that time it was thought that the Bill might be passed in another place. Mr. Chamberlain went to my great-grandfather, to the then Duke of Devonshire and to Arthur Balfour. He said that if that were likely to happen it would be a good thing to introduce a Bill to hold a referendum. They all agreed. They were a formidable quartet who joined forces on that occasion.
Mach has been said about the French referendum. I was in France at the time and I know that there was no question of people not understanding the issue. Apart from the vigorous government campaign to obtain a "yes" vote, there was the publication of an enormous pamphlet, of which I have a copy, explaining what it was all about. If there were a referendum in this country I imagine that something similar would happen in order to answer one simple question.
Finally, perhaps I may tell your Lordships a story. When my father was Leader of the House there was an occasion when he was most anxious to get an amendment passed. He thought it would be difficult and against the advice of the Chief Whip he insisted on there being a three-line whip. The day started badly because the call was obeyed by many peers who did not normally attend. The proceedings were held up for some time while they took the oath and signed the Roll. They listened politely to what my father said, thought that he was wrong and voted against him. Perhaps some of your Lordships may feel that that is a precedent which they might follow tonight.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I have only three points to make and they are relevant to the referendum. The first relates to the most impressive but disturbing speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I thought that it was too despondent and painted too grave a picture of the incursions of the cause of co-operation in the Common Market upon national sovereignty. Co-operation is not the surrendering of sovereignty; it is the pooling of sovereignty. We must ensure that the pool of sovereignty at least safeguards the major anxiety of those who put their sovereignty into the
300
pool. Much can be worked out as we go along. Already there are a number of reservations about the treaty which cover important points.
I suggest that some examination should be made of the areas into which the European Community has extended its powers of intervention and reorganisation. Many will be found to be in relation to business, products, labelling, branded goods and the welfare of animals. Consider the 5 million sheep which now go to Europe but which never previously went there from Britain. We must know something about the transport to Europe of live animals or we are not concerned with one of the grave moral issues of the day. Those areas are essential in the interest of the co-ordination and uniformity of matters which are important economically to the prosperity of the Common Market. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a simple example. We are trying to find alternatives to the use of animals in laboratories. We are making progress but so are other countries in the EC. However, there is no co-ordination as regards the range of their activities or their success rate. The EC has set up a central validation agency to validate alternatives to the use of animals in laboratories throughout the whole of Europe. Those matters are important but no doubt they fall in one of the areas to which the noble Baroness referred. Therefore I do not believe that they are all potentially evil and unduly bureaucratic Further study of them should be made.
In the meantime we must guard against giving the public a wrong, exaggerated and unduly disturbing picture of what is happening. It is no good going towards a referendum and putting fear in the minds of the population without having justification for what is happening or proposals to see that matters are improved and that excesses are checked.
Secondly, I have listened to a great deal of history about the referendum of 1975. I was involved in that referendum. At the time I was chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party and a member of the Shadow Cabinet. I saw it all. The chief concern of the Labour Party was the depth and severity of the rift inside the party as regards entry into the EC. It went right through the unions, through the Labour Party conference and through the parliamentary party. We had to do something to bring that to an end. The promise was made in the election prior to 1975 that the Labour Party would not be in favour of withdrawing from the EC, as many of our supporters wanted us to do, but would be in favour of renegotiating the terms of entry. After all, it was the terms of entry that were the problem. We went for a renegotiation of the terms. Then the shadow Cabinet and the Prime Minister—he was Leader of the Opposition at the time—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, he was Prime Minister and it was the Cabinet.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, he decided to have a referendum. But it was more to settle the rift inside the Labour Party than to settle any rifts outside. I believe that the disturbances in the public mind were nothing like so great from a Labour Party point of view as the disturbances within its own ranks.

301
We must bear in mind in our approach to the question of the Common Market that this evening's vote may have the direst consequences. I share some of the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness but I should have admired her the more, if I may humbly say so, had she been statesmanlike enough to say, "In the circumstances, I do not call upon anybody to support the amendment. I have given my warning, I have spoken to the people. Heed what I have said". That would have been a speech that I should have cheered. Instead of that, the noble Baroness pointed to the Lobby and asked noble Lords to follow her in support of the amendment.
We must ask what will be the consequences of the passing of the amendment. It would destroy the Government. It would take a coalition government to deal with the consequences of that decision because no government of any party could cope with the damage to prestige and confidence which the passing of the amendment would incur.
It may be that in the end it would take a national government to reach agreement on what are our expectations and plans for Europe in order to avoid the constant references either to the excesses which we allege are being committed or the people's discontent as regards the orders and regulations which are being made.
I have made three points and I do not believe any of them indicate that I should support the amendment. I shall certainly oppose it. Your Lordships would expect that from me because I have been a strong European for so many years now.
There is one matter which has not been mentioned in the debate but it will appeal to anybody who has endured two wars in his lifetime; that is, the peace of Europe. It was the concept of peace for Europe which began the Community policy. What about Churchill in Zurich in 1946? What about his great speech at the Albert Hall in May 1947? They were the clarion calls to what was eventually the movement for European unity and co-operation. Without talking too freely about a superstate, I believe that such a Community is indispensable to European peace and is probably indispensable also to world peace.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, it is a rather useless exercise to try to work out what will be the consequences of voting for or against the amendment. People must take their own decisions and do what they believe is right. They must chance their arm on the outcome.
I believe that I am one of the few people who will admit to having changed his mind on this issue. When I spoke in our Second Reading debate, I supported the Bill on balance and argued against a referendum. I have changed my mind on the second point because I have become convinced that many of the arguments used by noble Lords on that occasion were intellectually and morally flawed.
I wish to concentrate my attack on one proposition which I heard time and again as I sat through our Second Reading debate and which I have heard time
302
and again since; that is, that we should not support a referendum because there is nothing of substance for the people of this country to decide. It was said that either we were not signing up to anything to which we had not signed already or, if we were, the new things that we were signing up to would not happen. That is complete rubbish. The official government line is that the draft treaty of Maastricht was federalist in aim and character but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, by brilliant diplomacy, were able to remove those objectionable features from the treaty and reverse the trend towards federalism and centralism.
My noble friend the Leader of the House claimed it as a victory for the anti-federalist approach that the treaty specifically excluded foreign and home policy from the competence of the Community, limiting that competence to economic matters, which were the subject of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act.
However, my noble friend omitted to say that foreign and home affairs are, for the first time, two pillars, together with economic affairs, of a new structure—the European Union. Competencies denied to the Community are given to the Union. The European Economic Community, officially renamed the European Community, is now merely one pillar—I admit that it is the most important pillar so far—of a larger entity.
It is as though we were being told that we had achieved a great victory and kept all the extra furniture out of our house without being told that the house had been enlarged to accommodate it. That is the heart of the constitutional issue. It is not really what is happening within the Community, nor the extension of qualified voting or the move towards monetary union which is at the heart of the constitutional issue. It is the fact that a new entity is being created which has not existed previously, of which the Community is only one element. In that, I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Lawson. Monetary union is not the heart of the constitutional issue. It is the European Union which is at the heart of the constitutional issue.
Can one doubt that interpretation? The very first line of the treaty states that the:
"The high Contracting Parties establish among themselves a European Union".
It is a treaty of European Union. Union is not a word used in jest, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, implied. The citizens of member states are to become citizens of the Union. The Union has an identity which it will assert on the international scene. It will provide itself with the means necessary to obtain its objectives and carry though its policies. Those objectives include a foreign common policy, a common security policy and a common defence policy which is destined to become a common defence. The Union will be served by a common institutional framework. That is all there in the treaty. It will be a common institutional framework taking over from the Community, the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament and so on. We

303
are not talking about deepening the European Community. We are talking about creating a European Union. That is the main point.
I admit that two of the three pillars of the Union are shadowy, ghostly and skeletal. They have not had any flesh put on them yet. But the history of the Community shows that an abstract assertion of a competence is followed sooner or later by a concrete claim to a power. It must be so: if you assert a responsibility, you must sooner or later claim a power to exercise it. That is how Europe has been built up from the start, stone by stone, storey by storey and wing by wing. There has been no great watershed and no single act of creation. At no point in time does the building look much different from what it looked like the moment before. And yet it rises the whole time.
I am not saying that any of that is dishonest. There was no other way to build up a European state. But it is a technique well calculated to bamboozle the pragmatic English into the belief that nothing important is happening. Why bother with conceptions? asked my noble friend Lord Carrington in the true spirit of the practical man of affairs. The reason is that conceptions pave the way for practice. The French and the Germans live by conceptions. We do not. However, that is no excuse for ignoring their conceptions. We have paid a heavy price for ignoring some of them in the past.
I hope that I have carried your Lordships with me part of the way; that is, in agreeing with me that something new and interesting is being attempted by the treaty and that we are not simply engaged in the exercise of filling in details of previous treaties. But it has been said that those things will not come to pass; that the world has changed; and that federalism is no longer on the agenda. Some noble Lords have asked why we are wasting time arguing about Alice in Wonderland fantasies which will never take place. That is the argument of the practical man: "You know what the Europeans are like. They are full of hot air". That is how the argument has gone. I argued something like that myself but I am now bound to agree with my noble friend Lord Parkinson when he said on Second Reading:
"It is a bad basis for signing a treaty when one's basic motivation is that one does not believe that it will be implemented".—[Official Report, 7/6/93; col. 587.]
The history of "Euro-construction", if I may use that term, bears that out. The movement is not continuous, it is discontinuous. Europe has been relaunched several times, but the movement has been one way. The momentum will continue because Europe—the world—is a dangerous place. In the years ahead there will be perturbations, shocks and crises. Each one will offer seemingly compelling argument for adding new competences and attaching powers to competences already accepted.
There is surely something here worthy of the most deliberate consideration. I believe that Europe is on the move from confederalism to federalism. Precisely because the movement takes place in very small steps, it is easy to beguile oneself into the belief that nothing much is happening. Yet if one looks at it over a period of time, the change becomes much more evident. Because the British people approved membership of
304
something called the European Economic Community 18 years ago, one cannot say that they must be presumed to have accepted everything that has flowed from that decision ever since.
The full picture only gradually discloses itself. If, as I believe, we are in train from a confederation of independent states towards a federation in which the states are subordinate members of the new union, we have a duty to ask the British people whether or not they want to continue on that journey. If they do, let us join that adventure and play our part in it with the backing of that mandate. Alternatively, if they do not, it is not the end of the story. We are members of the European Community, we shall continue to be so and we shall play our part in renegotiating the arrangements. The worst possible scenario would be to go ahead against the wishes of the people, thus leaving people able to say afterwards, "We were conned". If that was done, we would risk a very nasty nationalist backlash. Therefore, I support the amendment. I hope that the majority of the House will join me in doing so.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Moran: My Lords, tonight's debate is about government by consent. Last night I looked the Reuters tape and one item caught my eye. It read:
"Prime Minister John Major favours full deregulation of Sunday shopping laws and the maximum amount of choice for the public, according to Downing Street".
It struck me as singularly inconsistent for the Prime Minister to advocate public choice on a secondary matter while seeking to deny any choice to the public on such an immensely important question as the Maastricht Treaty. The treaty will bring about enormous changes. It will entail a massive shift of power from this Parliament to unelected and unaccountable institutions in Brussels. Moreover, it will be a substantial step towards a single European state and a weakening of our position as an independent self-governing member of the European Community. Our centuries old, hard-won rights and liberties, which are already being seriously eroded, would be put at risk.
People have not been given the opportunity to express their views. They have not been offered any choice. It must be wrong to take such an enormous step without being sure of the wholehearted support of a majority of the people. A majority in the House of Commons, achieved by pressure from the Whips, is no substitute for genuine consultation with the people. Therefore, I am convinced that it is right to support the amendment.
A huge change in the way we are governed is being forced through by a de facto coalition of the three main political parties. Their members are a tiny majority of the population and all the evidence is that the policy upon which they have agreed does not enjoy support in the country. As we all know, the

305
Government are in some difficulty with, according to the polls, an approval rate of only 12 per cent. In my part of Wales, Conservative Party officials are leaving one after another because, they say, no one will listen to what they say. Maastricht is one of the things that they dislike, but the Government seem obsessed with it. Will they continue until their approval rate falls to 3 per cent., or zero?
Your Lordships may remember an earlier ruler who would riot trust the people. Charles I said on the scaffold that the people's liberty and freedom was,
"not for having a share in government; that is nothing pertaining to them".
That is not an altogether encouraging precedent. But I believe that if we pass the amendment it will give the Prime Minister a chance to set out on a new and more hopeful tack. If he were to call a referendum, he would, I believe, be respected for it and, whatever the result, would be able to go forward knowing what the people really want. I honestly believe that it would help him. The Government would frame the question, would have their enormous machine and that of the other two parties on their side, and would have every chance of winning. If they really believe that they would lose, what are they doing pushing the Bill and the treaty through?
I listened with great attention to the important and authoritative maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I am sure he is right in saying that monetary union is the essential core of the treaty. He pointed out that our opt-out protects us from proceeding to the third stage without parliamentary approval. The noble Lord suggested, not, as many have argued, that it is too late to have a referendum, but that it is too early and that the time when we should have it is before any decision to move to a third stage. That is a very interesting view. However, I wonder whether it is safe and prudent to defer consultation with the people until such a late stage. It presumes that our opt-out will really be effective and we might find it very difficult to block the central part of the treaty or negotiate a new treaty which would require a probably unattainable unanimity.
The noble Lord accepted that the treaty was produced by the federalists. I believe myself that it would be better and safer to put the case to the people now when the general issue is clear and before we get to the crunch on the third stage. However, if we do eventually reach that point, we would do well to remember what the noble Lord has said.
I respect—although I do not agree with them—those noble Lords who want a single currency, a single European state and an integrated Europe, the inevitable result of ever closer union. However, I find it hard to understand the position of many of my friends in the House who do not like Maastricht, who do not want a united states of Europe, a monetary union, European citizenship or a common foreign and defence policy but who feel that we have gone so far down the road that we have to ratify the treaty and then work from within for a more reasonable way forward.
306
I do not think that that is realistic. However, if those noble Lords are bothered and bewildered, would it not be better to abstain—a perfectly honourable course—rather than vote against the amendment? For those who do vote tonight, I believe that there will be no hiding place for the individual conscience. Those who vote against the amendment will be recorded for all time as wishing to deny their own people a voice on this great issue. I find it hard to believe—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Moran: Noble Lords may laugh; but it is true. As I was saying, I find it hard to believe that a majority of your Lordships really want to do so or think that it is right to obey three-line Whips and put party before conscience. The people have every right to be consulted before their system of government is fundamentally changed. If the amendment is defeated because not enough Peers have taken the trouble to come here to support it, as The Times on Monday said:
"There will be new converts to the Labour Party's campaign to abolish hereditary voting rights altogether".
Many people have said to me that, in those circumstances, we will not deserve to survive in our present form. However, the matter is more serious. People are slow to notice what is going on in the world, but when they wake up to find they have been betrayed by this Government—and, indeed, by all three political parties and that power has moved irreversibly to Brussels, their reaction is likely to be very strong; indeed, our whole party political system may come into question. What we desperately need is for the Government and the political class as a whole to regain the confidence of the people. One of the very greatest of our sovereigns, the first Queen Elizabeth, once said:
"This I count the glory of my crown: that I have reigned with your loves".
That is what I believe our rulers ought to aim at.
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I rise to intervene briefly at this late stage in the debate as I promised to do on Second Reading—
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, only one speaker may speak at one time. I hope the noble Baroness will therefore be good enough to resume her seat. As the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, spoke first, she should continue.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly in support of the amendment as I promised to do on Second Reading. I hope that I shall not retread any of the ground that has already been gone over other than to say that had I not been resolved to support this amendment when I came here, the arguments against it would have reinforced my resolve today. The main argument that has been put from the opponents to the amendment is that it is too late to hold a referendum. I question that as in 1975

307
the referendum was totally retrospective. All who have opposed this amendment apparently have done so not necessarily because they object to the principle of it but because they want to achieve ratification as soon as possible. I say better late than never.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who said that a referendum would be too complicated for people to understand. What an insult that is to the intelligence of the people of this country. If the elected representatives in another place can understand a referendum, and if your Lordships can understand one, surely it can be put in plain English so that the people of this country can understand the significance of the treaty. If that cannot be done, I suggest we reprint the speech of my noble friend Lady Thatcher as that would clearly explain the dangers of the position to the people of this country.
I held a referendum in my constituency in 1972. That was not difficult. No campaigns were fought during that referendum for or against a referendum or for or against entry. The facts were put to my constituents. They made a decision on the matter and honoured their decision on that occasion.
Many noble Lords have asked what will happen if the amendment is passed tonight. I hope that the amendment will be accepted tonight. If it is accepted, I believe that any referendum Bill that is drawn up should strike the word "Maastricht" out altogether. The treaty should be referred to as the Treaty of European Union, as that is what it is. Thus, the people of this country would be aware of what it is we are asking them to decide upon.
Further, I believe that the people of this country would feel totally and doubly rebuffed and resentful if this amendment were accepted in this House tonight and the other place then attempted to negate it. The sense of frustration that we have felt throughout the debates we have had in this House has given rise in Committee and on Report to what many of your Lordships have described as Second Reading speeches. I agree that many of the speeches could be so described. Those speeches arose out of the frustration that many noble Lords quite rightly felt at not being able to vote against the Second Reading. Let us not extend that frustration to the people of this country by denying them their say in this essential matter.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, in just one minor degree, and that is that I believe there is nothing wrong in this Chamber deciding tonight to carry this amendment. Indeed, I think there is everything right with that course of action. However, I take the view that we would have to send the amendment to the elected Chamber and we must recognise that that Chamber will have the final word. But we can hope that as a result of this debate here tonight many of the changes of heart and changes of perception will occur that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, conveyed to us in a most remarkable speech. He noted, perhaps for the first time, where we
308
are going. He realised that our action must be carried out with the support of the people and not against their will.
In a fairly long life—I cannot, of course, compete with my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby in that respect but I am on the way—I have discovered that politicians tend on the whole to support those referenda which they believe will give them the results they want and to oppose those which they believe will give them results they do not want. I have discovered a way of preventing myself from falling into that trap. If one follows that course, one comes down firmly in favour of the referendum we are discussing tonight. I believe that if the referendum concerns a constitutional change of importance it is justified. However, a referendum on issues of policy, for example, is not justified as those areas must be decided by the representatives of parliamentary democracy. The issue of constitutional change is, I believe, a matter for the people. That is why I believe we should carry this amendment tonight.
In a previous short intervention I said that I thought that the chap who had put his finger on this issue was Conor Cruise O'Brien when he said that a federation of states is all right but a federation of nations is not. I do not have time to expand on that tonight, but if noble Lords will reflect on that I believe they will discover that Conor Cruise O'Brien has put his finger right on the point.
If one looks at the wider world scene, one can see that as regards the United States a federation has come off. America has had its problems of course, but by and large the federation has come off. However, one must also examine recent events in Europe. What has happened when an attempt has been made to force a federation of states in the former Soviet Union? The moment the lid is taken off, there emerges nationality. I am no great nationalist, but surely we must recommend that the loyalty of people is to the nation state: it is not to the federation of Europe. The more one looks into this matter, the more one reaches the conclusion that the way that we are going at the moment we shall ultimately achieve a federation. We are already on our way there. Tonight we will decide whether we go further, perhaps inextricably. Is that wise? Some people do not want a referendum now, but the next time it will be too late. This may be the last opportunity we have to avoid becoming part of a federal union of Europe.
It seems to me that the view has been taken in the Chamber that perhaps as we are unelected—frankly, we are in some respects rather absurd—we have no right to carry this amendment because it is an amendment of such a fundamental character. The Chamber is as it is at the moment, and as we are here in it we have to do our duty as we are at the moment. Our duty at the moment is, it seems to me, to carry this amendment and to give the elected Chamber the opportunity to think again. Let us hope to God that it does.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank your Lordships very much indeed for your courtesy in allowing me to speak. I am sorry that I have gone on. Every time I looked at my speech it seemed to get worse and worse, but I speak from the heart. I am, as I believe all your Lordships are, a European both by geography (we are, after all, an island off the coast of Europe rather than America, Asia or Africa) and by history, invaded by Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans and Bretons—which was why the Normans called my original ancestor Strange because he was a foreigner—and now tourists.
I have French, German, Dutch, Italian and Hungarian blood in my veins. I have a French son-in-law who makes very good wine and two French grandchildren. What worries me in this treaty is the loss of sovereignty—I would like very much to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lawson on his very powerful speech on this issue—because, although enough words have been spoken about Maastricht to run the Eurovision Song Contest for ever, on a vital constitutional issue there has not been a referendum.
We all want Europe to work. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has wrung some very important concessions out of the treaty at Maastricht. But it is still like patching up an old banger which may or may not go with 12 passengers but will certainly not do for 28.
We Europeans are like trees in a wood. We all have our own roots, our own variety, our own way of growing, and have done so for hundreds of years. We are all part of the same wood. The same rain falls on us all. The same winds buffet us. The same birds sing and nest in our branches. We have very much in common, but we are not one tree.
8 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I have already spoken twice in your Lordships' House in favour of a referendum. Indeed, I was among the first of your Lordships to advocate a referendum. Therefore, I do not wish to take up your Lordships' time by repeating my arguments, but I should like to make three points.
First, any constitutional objections to holding a referendum have been disposed of by the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who moved the amendment so powerfully. Secondly, it carries no weight as an argument to say that the decision to enter Europe was taken in the referendum of 1975. The decision taken then was to enter a European common market. The intention of the drafters of the Maastricht Treaty is to create a federal European state. That is very, very different.
My third point, and the most important, is this. I have previously said in your Lordships' House that this is a momentous issue. Of course it is. One has only to consider the enormous amount of time devoted to the Maastricht Bill by both Houses of Parliament. One has only to look at the packed Benches of your Lordships' House today. We are faced with a vital
310
decision for the future of our country. In my view it must be right to invite the people to express their opinion.
I shall vote for the amendment.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, we have long been aware that language is a major hurdle to unity within Europe. It may well be that Maastricht is a complicated treaty to interpret and present in a document in language that can be understood by all. Surely the proposals are far too important to be presented in such a confusing manner, riddled with ambiguities, and therefore subject to misinterpretation by all who have the opportunity to read or study them.
These proposals, if ratified, will permanently change the way we live. It is certainly possible to argue that change is inevitable, and it has been suggested that we shall be left behind if we do not ratify. The Maastricht proposals would change the very fabric of this country, and this the result of one widely misunderstood document.
All noble Lords who have had the benefit and honour of serving in His or Her Majesty's Armed Forces will understand that ignorance of rules and regulations during service is an offence and punishable. I do not suggest that the whole nation should be subject to that system, but there is a message here. Part of the military system is to ensure that information is passed from the highest levels of command down to the lowest rank. Even complicated orders are put into language which can be clearly understood by all without ambiguity and without confusion and which will not be subject to misinterpretation.
The Maastricht proposals are of such an important nature, and, if ratified, would create irrevocable changes, that it is simply not good enough to say that the proposals are too complicated for the electorate to comprehend fully. As in the services, it should be the duty of the so-called elite to ensure full comprehension of the proposals through all levels of society. The electorate must be given the opportunity to understand proposals with constitutional implications which will permanently change the way in which their children and grandchildren live.
We are a great trading nation. Many of our products are still the envy of the world. It is possible that the single market has been of benefit to certain manufacturers. In fact, there is a Staffordshire-based pottery of which I have a little knowledge and experience which, after 200 years of tradition, for the first time has seriously established a foothold in the European market-place as a result of the focus given by the single market. The Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act gave us the single market. All the potters in Staffordshire, the whisky distillers in Scotland, the fabric mills of the North, the high-tech gurus of East Anglia, the market gardeners of the South and West and the engineering plants of the Midlands, to name but a few, welcome the opportunity to improve business through trade and exports in any market, and perhaps for many

311
especially in Europe. To most of those people and to a large proportion of the electorate who for generations have helped to maintain the proud traditions of this country, that is what European unity means—trade, not the ceding of 100 new areas of government responsibility. They do not realise that through Maastricht they could lose the ability to operate to their best advantage and to that of the country.
The great American statesman John Adams said in 1774:
"As the happiness of the people is the sole end of government. so the consent of the people is the only foundation of it".
The electorate must be educated on the extremely important proposals resulting from Maastricht and then given a chance to decide whether they wish to allow the system to be irrevocably changed. It is their right.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I wish to detain the House only a few minutes. I do so because I find myself at odds with my own party on this issue. I am extremely saddened that the Labour Party officially opposes a referendum when every public opinion poll has come out with a sizeable majority in favour of a referendum. As an ex-Chief Whip I am equally saddened that the Labour Party has decided to impose a three-line Whip on an issue on which so many of us feel deeply. I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and I hope that many others on this side of the House will also do so. I suggest that all of us on all sides of the House forget about our three-line Whips and vote according to our consciences.
We have had three referendums in the United Kingdom, all on matters of basic constitutional importance. Can anyone doubt that Maastricht is such an issue? Of course it is. Everybody knows that it is. Maastricht plots a course which leads clearly, inevitably and ultimately irrevocably, to a European federation. There is no doubt about that.
Do the people of the United Kingdom want that? I do not know. With respect, I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House knows the answer to that question. Nobody knows. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Archer, say on television this morning, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, say a few moments ago that the subject was included in every party's manifesto at the last election and we all supported it. In that case, how could anybody vote against it? They could not. They had no choice whatever. That is no argument at all. At least give the people of this country the opportunity to express a view.
We have heard a good deal about the 1975 referendum. I was involved in it. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—Mr. Roy Jenkins as he was then—was the Home Secretary. He refused point blank to have anything to do with it. He refused to do his duty as Home Secretary. The Prime Minister, believing quite wrongly that the Lord President of the Council had nothing much to do, asked me to do it. Therefore I was in charge of the ministerial side of it. The noble
312
Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was in charge of the Civil Service side of it. I took the question to the Cabinet four or five times before it was as we wanted.
I should like to point out something about the question. It is extremely important. The question asked: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" In other words, those last three words, "the Common Market", defined what we meant then by the European Community. We meant then a common market and nothing more. That is what the people of this country voted for. That is what I believed in; I still believe in it. I went round the country urging people to vote "yes". The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, and I spoke on a platform in Glasgow about the matter, and on many other platforms. Sixty-eight point seven per cent. of the people voted in favour.
It is 18 years since that referendum. Since then the Community has gone far beyond a common market. Even if we count all those factors which are necessary in the words of that horrible modern phrase "to create a level playing field", it has gone far beyond a common market. I read in the Daily Telegraph this morning that 1,087 directives made by non-elected commissioners are currently applicable. The vast majority of those directives have nothing whatever to do with the common market. I read in the paper yesterday about Blackpool beach. It is highly desirable to have Blackpool beach cleaned up, but what has that to do with Brussels? It is a matter for us in this country; it has nothing to do with the common market. The system has run amok in the past 20 years.
The simple truth is that the federalists have bamboozled all of us by talking about creating a common market while in fact they were digging the foundations, laying the footings and starting to build the walls of a European federation, a superstate. To deny that is the same as saying that black is white.
I have been fighting elections for 48 years. One lesson I have learnt is that one should never underestimate the British electorate. It is well informed, sensible and balanced. To say that it would use the referendum to vote against the Government's record is plainly nonsense. However, if there is a fear about that, we could do what we did in 1975. I obtained from the Treasury a certain amount of money. I had the "yes" and "no" lobbies prepare pamphlets of equal size. We had those distributed by the Post Office to every householder in the country so that everyone had all the arguments fairly and dispassionately from both sides. We could do that.
If a referendum asked a simple, straightforward question, the electorate of this country would give a simple, clear verdict. Without that clear verdict from people on whose behalf we make decisions in this Chamber, I believe that the Maastricht Treaty ought not to be ratified—and I am in favour of the common market. Without that verdict of the people, I do not believe that we have the moral right to ratify the treaty.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the time may have arrived when your Lordships believe that we should come to a conclusion on the matter.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carrington: I shall therefore be brief. I am opposed to the amendment, not, I must confess, for some of the reasons that have been given. For instance, I do not accept that it is improper for this House to vote on the amendment or, if your Lordships so wished, to pass the amendment on the Report stage of a Bill of this importance. In the 50 years or so that I have been a Member of this House it has always been accepted that we have a right to ask another place to think again on a measure of great importance, however unlikely it may be—and in this case it is extremely unlikely—that the other place might change its mind. It would, of course, be quite improper if the amendment were rejected by the House of Commons and sent back to this Chamber for this House to insist on it. I have no doubt that my noble friends who support the amendment would be the first to agree to that. It is no business of this House to overrule the elected House in the last instance. However, we have a right and are entitled to vote if we so please. Whether it is wise or profitable for your Lordships to do so is another matter.
I oppose the amendment for different reasons. If the amendment were passed, and a referendum were to take place, it is obvious that one of two situations would arise. If the result were a majority for the Maastricht Treaty, nothing would have been gained and a great deal of time and trouble would have been spent on the referendum. There would have been a divisive campaign and, I suspect, a campaign of much bitterness which would undoubtedly damage the standing of the Government in the eyes of our European friends. I suspect that they feel that enough time and argument has been spent on the issue in this country over these past months. It would certainly damage the standing of the Government in this country. I do not expect noble Lords opposite to be moved by that argument, but it might perhaps move some noble Lords who sit on this side of the Chamber who, although not frequent attenders, are supporters of the Government.
However, if the result of the referendum were to reject the treaty, I am not at all clear where that would leave us. It would certainly leave us in a state of considerable confusion. In my judgment, not only would our partners be wholly exasperated after all this time that such a decision had been reached; there would also undoubtedly be a powerful movement in the remainder of the Community to go ahead without us—and not necessarily on those issues to which objection had been made. We would be marginalised and cease to have any voice whatever in the future of Europe where, whether or not some may like it, our future lies.
It is unrealistic to suppose that the treaty would be renegotiated as a result of a decision at a referendum. I can think of nothing which would lead to more
314
confusion or be so disadvantageous to this country, both politically and economically. As I said at Second Reading, in many ways the Maastricht Treaty has been overtaken by events. Events have moved on a good deal since the treaty was signed. Indeed, it is certainly nothing like as crucial as was the Single European Act. It is far better that we should accept the treaty with the opt-out clauses which the Prime Minister has negotiated, and bring to bear on our friends in the Community the common sense which I believe the Government have displayed in these past two years. I hope very much that your Lordships will not be beguiled into voting for what I believe would be an amendment damaging to the long-term interests of this country.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in believing that it is probably the general sense of the House that the time has come for the winding-up speeches. What I believe is clear from the cut and thrust of the debate is that the merits of a referendum in a parliamentary democracy such as ours is a peculiarly difficult question. We were all intensely interested by what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said about the committee set up when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was still Leader of the Opposition. It is obviously a very difficult question.
One can quote the remark by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about the referendum being the tool of dictatorship; or one can point to other democratic countries which have referenda —for instance, that most placid and prosperous of democracies, Switzerland. The trouble is that both propositions are absolutely true, which is, no doubt, why the noble Baroness has been able to adopt both in succession.
I merely conclude—I hope not too dogmatically in view of my prejudices on the matter—that we had better decide these matters for ourselves rather than looking over our shoulders at what other countries do in the way of having a referendum. We should decide for ourselves, according to our own traditions and experience, whether the resort to a referendum is appropriate. Much depends on the circumstances of each case. In the circumstances of the Maastricht Treaty, I believe that the case for a referendum is very weak indeed. As I have listened to the debate, the view that I have just expressed has been strengthened. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who opened the debate, that the basic weakness in the case for a referendum in present circumstances is that Maastricht does not make sufficient constitutional change to justify the unusual British course of a referendum. I know that that has been contested in the debate, but I have heard nothing to alter my view.
Parliament's painstaking, detailed and sometimes dreary examination of the treaty has proved exactly that view on item after item. I have probably sat through almost as much of the debate as anyone in the House. Even the new concept of the citizen of the Union, which causes anxiety to some noble Lords in various parts of the House, turns out to be conditional

315
on British citizenship and adds some modest but helpful rights to us as part of the European Community, without adding any new duties.
The major constitutional commitment to a European union was in the Act of 1972 without a referendum. The subsequent referendum, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, took place in 1975. I am sure that the two to one majority of British people was in favour of pooling sovereignty as part of membership of the Community.
As many noble Lords have said, the Single European Act took the development a good deal further down the European union road than Maastricht does. However, as was said by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that was whipped through Parliament by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, without a blush, and without a referendum. If I may say so to the noble Baroness, to whom we all listened with great respect, I thought she protested a little too much about having been taken in by wicked foreigners in her signatures both of the Stuttgart declaration and the Single European Act. I was saddened that she, as a former Prime Minister, should make the attack, as she did once again, on the European Court of Justice. It is an institution of great importance to all of us in terms of maintaining the rule of law in the European Community, of which we are a member.
A second argument put forward is that at the last general election all the main political parties were in favour of Maastricht and the British voter had no chance to choose. If there had been a little electoral reform of voting in this country, there might have been an easier situation in regard to that. It is a curious and rather contemptuous view of the British voter and of democracy in each of our parties that the Maastricht Treaty was signed in December 1991. Between then and the general election there were months of major debate in Parliament and in the media about the pros and cons of Maastricht. Does anyone really believe that if there had been a ground swell of popular opinion, which many noble Lords appear to feel exists somewhere out there in the constituencies, against Maastricht, it would not have found an outlet? There were quite a number of anti-Community candidates in various constituencies, and I think that they all comfortably lost their deposits.
Noble Lords have also pointed out other practical weaknesses in the pro-referendum case. Parliament has now spent over a year going through the treaty and the Bill with a fine-tooth comb. It would be a ludicrous declaration of weakness for the Prime Minister now to turn another somersault and further delay ratification. Nor has he any need to do so with, as has been pointed out, a majority of 239 behind him in another place.
Of course, your Lordships' House has a perfect right to pass the amendment and ask another place to think again about the matter. But what we have to decide in a short time is whether, in the judgment of noble Lords, it is wise for the House to decide that another place should think again and whether that is justified in what it turns out is the constitutional scope
316
of the changes being made. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was absolutely right that, to put it mildly, a course like that would generate constitutional friction of a high order.
The Liberal Democrats were teased a good deal during the Committee proceedings about what was regarded in some quarters as our excessive zeal for the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. I venture to point out that tonight we are the only party in the House, apart from the Cross-Benches, to have a genuinely free vote on this difficult democratic issue of a referendum.
I wish to put my position on record. I believe that the most powerful case against a referendum on Maastricht goes deeper than the practical arguments with which I have just dealt. It is that it undermines parliamentary democracy, and in that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. I am against the referendum, not because I believe that Whitehall or Westminster knows best. Parliament and Whitehall are imperfect institutions, as those of us who have spent a lifetime here can testify.
I am against the referendum because, as a democrat, I believe that on balance the elected House of Commons (for all the distortions of the first-past-the-post system) and your Lordships' House (for all the curiosities of its composition)—and tonight we welcome many strange and fresh faces here for the final Division—remain the most sensitive political seismograph for registering complicated political questions of public interest and public policy.
Compared with Parliament, a referendum—and certainly the kind of referendum proposed in the present circumstances, without any of the constitutional framework hinted at by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—is a blunderbuss liable to hit the wrong target. The French referendum on Maastricht turned out to be a referendum on Mitterrand and a British one would most likely be a referendum on Major and the Government's follies over matters like VAT. Although it is tempting to those of us on this side of the House, the ratification of an important treaty is far too serious and vital a matter for playing such party political games.
I believe that rather unrealistic and perhaps romantic nonsense has been talked tonight about Peers and people. We listened to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, with great respect; he is a great historian and constitutional expert. But his idea that somehow Peers can come to the rescue of the people does not have much reality behind it. After a long life in politics, my hunch is that most ordinary people feel that issues raised by something like the Maastricht Treaty—complex questions concerning not only bread-and-butter issues but issues of defence and foreign policy—are matters which they pay their politicians to deal with and decide for them.
The way in which the Government have dragged out the Maastricht debate to appease a tiny minority of critics in both Houses has led to the public becoming bored with the wrangling. I believe that the public want their elected leaders to get on with it. People are not starry-eyed about the European Community, any more than they are about the

317
government in this country at any time. However, the underlying consensus is that our future lies in the European Community and therefore the commonsense view is that we had better make the most of it because so much hangs on the kind of contribution we can make to Europe and peace generally.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, argued for the amendment on the grounds that politicians—elected or unelected—are not a popular group at the moment. I agree with him on that point, but I totally disagree with him in the remedy that he recommended to noble Lords. Politicians generally are under a great deal of unfair attack by the media these days. Even the serious press has stopped reporting our debates and prefers to organise its own assembly of sound bites across on Palace Green. It seems to me that this is a time crying out for political leadership, and a time for politicians to face up to their responsibilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher said —quoted, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in his report—it is not a time for passing the buck to the voters who elected them.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as we approach the end of what has been a long and relatively good-humoured debate, I hope I may be permitted to say a word of admiration for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. I have a particular reason to do so since, as he said himself, he imposed abstinence on himself in delaying his maiden speech for roughly a year since entering the House. I happened to sit next to the noble Lord in the general philosophy final schools at Oxford. The desks are organised so that they are two feet apart; the "L"s go down and then the "M"s go down. In those examinations one gets 12 questions, of which one is supposed to answer four. Mere mortals cross off all the ones that we know we cannot answer and hope that there are four left. Not so the noble Lord. He sat there cerebrating for a full hour-and-a-half before he deliberately unscrewed his fountain pen and put pen to paper. The noble Lord achieved a congratulatory first. I only received a second. I have hated him ever since. I hate him for the facility and brilliance of his maiden speech, which confirms all that I ever thought about him.
I wonder whether it is possible to find some common ground in this debate. We have ranged over a wide number of topics, some of them not very close to the issue of the amendment and the referendum. Let us see where we can agree. First of all, can we agree that this House is entitled to ask the House of Commons to think again? That is clearly the constitutional situation, and it is no shame on this House, whatever the motivation of noble Lords may be, to ask the other place, if we want to, to think again.
Secondly, can we agree that although the referendum is not a common institution in our political life, it is nevertheless a legitimate institution in our political life? Many examples have been quoted—I shall certainly not dream of going into the history
318
of referenda here—and there have been times when they have solved problems which could not have been solved in any other way.
Thirdly, I hope we can agree that a referendum is technically possible. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, spoke about some of the practical difficulties; nevertheless, it is possible to frame a question which could be put to the people of this country and which would get an answer.
Fourthly, can we agree that the issues raised by the Maastricht Treaty are not new? We have heard many different versions of the extent to which we have moved from 1957 to 1973, to 1975, to 1986. In all of these dates there are great points for some noble Lords, while for others there is a continuity of intention which means that a break point is not particularly important. But we all agree that many of the issues that we have debated in our consideration of the Maastricht Bill have been raised before. Indeed, far too many of the amendments that we have considered were actually amendments to the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act and earlier treaties rather than to Maastricht itself.
Fifthly, can we agree that the issues raised by Maastricht are in themselves of intrinsic importance. Even if they follow on from two or three decades of debate within this country, the issues are important. The novelty of some of the issues and the way in which they have found effect in treaties are still important. If we agree on that, then I think we can hope to narrow down our differences—there are still enormously important differences—and try to make up our minds on how we are going to vote in a more rational way.
We should concentrate our thoughts not so much on our views of the Maastricht Treaty but on our views on whether a referendum is a wise tactic to adopt (it is only a tactic) in these circumstances and at this time. I put this in general terms in order not to cause offence. It seems to me that referenda are overwhelmingly wanted by those who fear that they will lose the issue in Parliament, and overwhelmingly feared and rejected by those who fear that they would lose the popular vote. There are honourable exceptions to that; there have been one or two honourable exceptions this afternoon and this evening. However, on the whole I could have predicted what noble Lords were going to say about the referendum, not from any prior knowledge about their views on constitutional issues but from their views about Maastricht. I do not think that that is a very good way to move into a referendum.
Then there is the issue of timing. My noble friend Lord Richard said in his opening speech that the time for a referendum is long since past. Yes, indeed. I agree with him. But how far do we go back? The Prime Minister came back from Maastricht declaring that the Maastricht Treaty was a political triumph and that we had won—"game, set and match" was the phrase he used. Why then did he not put the issue to a referendum at that time? He could easily have done so. I am quite sure that he would have won. It appears, from the look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that he thinks the Prime Minister would have won at that time. There is a history of mismanagement

319
over the past 18 months which cannot be neglected. But do we look further back than that? Should there have been—it has been a matter of great debate—a referendum over the Single European Act? Should there have been a referendum before Sir Edward Heath took us into the treaty in the first place? I shall skate over the motives for the referendum of 1975. They have been referred to by a number of my noble friends, but it is generally agreed that party considerations, as well as national considerations, played some part in the decision to have a referendum at that time.
Let us consider the issue which we might attempt to put to the people in a referendum. I have conceded (or agreed) that a referendum is practically possible. It is possible to frame a simple question, although I notice that a number of supporters of the referendum have different ideas about what that simple question might be. A simple question does not, of course, imply a simple answer arid a simple outcome. Referenda tend to be about what people want them to be about rather than the question that is put. The referendum on Maastricht in Ireland was to a very considerable extent about abortion. The referendum in France was to a considerable extent about the popularity of President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Cresson. The referendum in Denmark was confused by the fact that of those who voted "No" some did so because they wanted more European unity, and some because they wanted less European unity—a somewhat unholy alliance.
What would a referendum do about the issue that has concerned Parliament; namely, the issue of the social chapter? Could that be included in a question? Would it have to be a separate question? How could people express their view on an issue which has divided noble Lords and honourable Members in another place more than almost any other issue? How could we ask people their view on what happens if there is a "No" vote? Is it clear that the other 11 member states will go ahead with Maastricht, whether or not we ratify it? How can we deal with the fact, which is obvious from the debate today, that a very large number of noble Lords who want a referendum want it not in order to oppose Maastricht but to oppose the movements towards European union that went before it? We cannot go back. We could break away from the Common Market altogether, but if that option were put to the British people one might obtain a slightly different result.
What do we do about the issue of the power of the referendum? The amendment states that it shall be a "consultative referendum". What happens with a consultative referendum? Apparently it does not bind Parliament. Are Members of both Houses to come back after a referendum and say, "I am sorry but I was wrong. I shall vote the other way now" or will they adhere to the view that they took when they were elected just over a year ago? If it is a binding referendum who will frame the legislation giving effect to it? The difficulties are enormous and the practical difficulties are very great.
Let us consider the immediate practical issue. It has been suggested—I am sure it is right—that if this
320
amendment is agreed this evening the Bill will go straight back to the other place and the amendment will be overturned straightaway. The Bill would then come back here. Those who would vote for the amendment on the basis that it would have no effect because the other place would reject it ought to think again. It is not so short term and tactical an issue as that. It raises the issue of the comity between the two Houses of Parliament. The fact that we know that it will not have effect does not absolve us from taking the view that we believe we ought to take. It does not absolve us from the responsibility of taking a wise and responsible decision.
So the tactical problems are very considerable indeed. But I do not base my opposition to the amendment and the referendum on the tactical issues. I base my opposition, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, on the whole issue of parliamentary democracy. We have heard a lot about the views of Locke, Burke, and many others; but they were speaking in general about an 18th century parliament, a parliament which did not represent the people and one in which seats in the House of Commons could be bought and sold—as indeed seats in your Lordships' House at many times in its history have been bought, though they cannot be sold, of course.
What has happened in the past 200 years since Burke and 250 years since Locke is that we have achieved universal suffrage. We have achieved a better form of parliamentary democracy than we had before. We have achieved a form of parliamentary democracy of which we have the right to be proud. It has achieved a relative degree of amity and allowed for progress, sometimes in fits and starts, over the years by dint of reference to the people at roughly regular intervals, where a whole range of issues are presented to them rather than single issues. As a market researcher, I know that one has to consider not only people's views on an issue but how important those views are to them. That is one of the things that will be particularly difficult to do. The salience of the issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, will no doubt recognise, is particularly difficult in a referendum when one imposes the salience upon it.
Because our parliamentary democracy is so strong and so soundly based (with all the defects which many noble Lords will feel that it has, notably in this House) we ought to be very careful about turning our back on it. That is what moving to a referendum would mean. After all, it is not as though the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill has been particularly defective. The Bill did not have a guillotine in the other place and it cannot have one in this Chamber. It has been said that three-line Whips have been applied. But it is obvious that the three-line Whips have been widely flouted, both in another place and here. There has been considerable freedom for honourable Members and noble Lords on all sides to express their own views and not the views of their parties, and they have done so.
I say with all humility to my noble friend Lord Glenamara, a former Chief Whip who doubts whether we should have sought to impose a three-line Whip today, that we did so because we had a 90 per cent. majority last year at the Labour Party Conference

321
which was not only in general in favour of the Maastricht Treaty but also against a referendum. That is why we imposed a three-line Whip today.
There has been a history of mismanagement by the Government of this whole issue. But we are here today, on 14th July 1993, and we have to take a decision. The decision that I believe we should take is one which upholds parliamentary democracy and opposes this amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I was quite surprised by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and his attitude towards a referendum. I was listening to Radio 4 on Monday morning when the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party said that he felt that the politicians were distancing themselves from the people of this country. One of the ways in which he thought that that attitude could be rectified was through using referenda. I should have thought that this was a perfect opportunity for politicians to allow themselves to get closer to the electorate.
Also, I think I am right in saying that the Leader of the party opposite advocated a referendum on proportional representation. If you can advocate a referendum on a matter which I believe is nothing like as constitutionally important as what we are discussing today, surely that is a degree of hypocrisy.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, those of us who have sat through several weeks of discussion on this treaty have heard some extraordinarily interesting debates. But quite clearly there has been none of such significance, with so many speeches of such great power, as we have heard today. Those of us who are opponents of the treaty and advocates of a referendum have found ourselves sometimes accused of narrow nationalism; yet we walk in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. We have been accused of undermining parliamentary sovereignty; yet we walk with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who was one of the greatest Speakers of this century. Would he undermine parliamentary sovereignty? Is there anyone in this House who understands Parliament more deeply than the noble Viscount? I doubt it. At times we have been accused of lack of consistency, and we have even been accused of lack of consistency from the Liberal Benches. I and some of my friends have been accused of disloyalty as we remained loyal to the Prime Minister who was overthrown by those who accused us of disloyalty. So we have had some interesting experiences.
Today we have heard many speeches of great eloquence, power and conviction, not least among them that of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. We all know the strength and power of her personality and her convictions. We heard today my noble friend Lady Thatcher say: "Yes, I as Prime Minister got my fingers burnt. In short, yes, I entered into commitments which I now regret". I do not think it is right to regard that as a sign of inconsistency or weakness. I find that an immensely powerful argument in this discussion. One
322
who took through so much of this legislation and has had such great experience, unlike most of us as politicians, is able to say, "Yes, there were mistakes and I have learnt from those mistakes".
I was also immensely impressed by the brief and powerful speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington. But I have to ask: suppose it had not been this kingdom which held a referendum and voted no but France—it very nearly was—would that have meant that the Community would have stopped? Would France have been pushed into a corner by the other 11? Of course not. It is a sense of inferiority which says that only Britain is not allowed to disagree; only Britain is allowed to take advantage of the Treaty of Rome which says that any changes made to it must be reached by unanimity.
Let me try to pull out some of the threads which I feel have run through the debate. First, let me clear up a misunderstanding sadly shared by my noble friend Lord Beloff —although I am not sure whether what he said was purely in fun. The referendum proposed would not be on membership of the European Community. There is not a mood in this House or in this country to leave the European Community. It is a gross distortion of arguments to claim that that is the issue. The issue is whether we wish to change the Community's nature from the Community we have now—let alone that which, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, observed, we entered and on which we had the referendum—whether we wish to stay with the one we have or whether we want to go on to something radically different. It would be a referendum solely on whether we should ratify Maastricht.
The question therefore arises as to whether Maastricht is a substantial new departure. Of course it is. My noble friend Lady Thatcher dealt with that, along with many other noble Lords. The concept of citizenship, foreign policy and so forth are all there. It is a document which sets out the plan for a state, not an alliance of nations within a treaty. But even if noble Lords take the view that it is no more than an incremental change on top of the Single European Act, surely they can see that one can go up or down a hill not merely by a set of steep steps but also along a gradual slope. Somewhere or other one may take the decision that this is far enough, or even that the Community should change its direction from that in which it has been sent in recent years.
There was a suggestion that referenda are foreign to the United Kingdom. Of course they are not. As we heard recently from a number of speakers, we have had plenty of them in the past. It was suggested that it is only those who oppose the Bill who are in favour of a referendum. But it is also true that it is sometimes those who do not feel that the nation would support their legislation who fear a referendum.
It was suggested that there has already been a decision by the electors. My noble friend Lord Wakeham said that people have spoken through Parliament. Ask the cab drivers; ask the people in the shops; ask the people one meets every day at work. Put the question to them: "Sir, Madam, have you expressed your view on Maastricht through Parliament?" I fear the answer one may receive from

323
some of those people. I say to my noble friend Lady Elles, who referred to the Newbury by-election, that the candidate who won was sympathetic to a referendum. That may have some significance, but it certainly demolishes the argument put by my noble friend.
It has been said that the decision has been made by the people because they returned a Conservative Government and that this was in the Conservative Party manifesto. I invite anyone to read the section in the Conservative Party manifesto in which it states that the Government are committed to the ratification of the treaty. It says that the treaty is a good thing; that it was a brilliant success of the Government; and it lists the priorities of the British presidency to come. But the word "ratification" is not to be found anywhere—not anywhere.
It may he held that Conservative leaders made it plain in the election campaign that, if elected, they would ratify the treaty. Indeed, they also made it plain that they would not impose VAT on gas or electricity. My friends cannot have it both ways.
It has been held that it is too complicated for the electors to understand. It is not held that it is too complicated for the elder son of an hereditary peer to come here and understand. To the best of my knowledge. there is not an intelligence or academic test to pass in order to be elected to another place. Why is it that we have this contempt for our electors? Why are we unable to trust them, except on the day of a general election? If indeed the argument is made that on the day of the general election they voted for the treaty, presumably they must have understood it, taken it into account with an enormous number of other things at the same time, sorted them all out and come to a conclusion.
There are severe flaws in the logic of some of those who say that the people are not fit to be consulted. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, made an amazing assumption in regard to the people of France. By some divine insight denied to the rest of us, he knows what was in the minds of the people of France as they voted in the referendum; he knows that they did not vote on the question in front of them but that they voted on President Mitterrand. If that had been the case, the majority would have been a lot higher.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the noble Lord means the majority against the treaty.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, yes; the majority against the treaty. I am glad that the noble Lord is on the ball as ever.
What a meal was made over what should be the question on the ballot paper. They managed to find a question to ask in Ireland; they managed to find a question to ask in Denmark; they managed to find a question to ask in France. Are we to be told that it is beyond the wit of this assembled multitude of people, who are so wise that they understand the treaty even if the people do not, to find a question to put to the country? I humbly suggest that the question could be very simple: "Do you wish the Treaty of Maastricht to be put into effect?" That is what the issue is about. We cannot start saying, "Do you want this bit or that bit
324
of the treaty?" After all, that was the argument of the Front Benches all the way through as we tried to amend the Bill: "Take it or not; like it or lump it''. That is what Parliament was told and that is what the people would have to be told.
We have heard the argument that a referendum is bound to give the answer no because the Government are unpopular. I wish that the Government were more popular. But even if they were, I would still want a referendum.
Of more interest is the fact that the opinion polls on Maastricht have remained pretty level in their reporting of what the people of this country think of the treaty, while the opinion polls on the Government have gone up and down. They may well go up again in future. There is a presumption that when people are asked by a pollster they can distinguish between the Maastricht Treaty and the Government. There would be no reason why they should not do so in a campaign, not to mention the fact that if they voted no they would be voting not only against the Government (if that was what noble Lords wanted to say) but against the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. Are you all so unpopular?
It is held that a referendum will undermine Parliament. What is being put forward is a consultative referendum. Will this Parliament, which has developed over the centuries, be destablised if some dastardly plot is devised by which Members of both Houses become aware of the views of the people? Will it really strike away the foundations of Parliament and destroy our democracy? I find that an extraordinary idea. Should we not know the views of the people when we are enacting legislation, or is there to be a new Official Secrets Act—the only one of which parties opposite will be in favour—under which we can know anything except the views of the electors, which must be kept secret at all times?
I believe that it would be highly desirable if more Members of both Houses of Parliament knew the views of their electors. Would it bring down the Government? As has already been said today, Ministers in this Government are not notably quick to resign their posts. I cannot see any enthusiasm on the Government Back Benches for an early election, nor do I see any great enthusiasm for it in the Cabinet. I imagine that the barrier in Downing Street would be raised very rapidly if there was any thought that the Prime Minister's car would be heading towards Buckingham Palace. The Government would survive and receive a vote of confidence next day.
As a new Member I say of this place that it is an anachronism. But I do not worry about that. There are many useful and good anachronisms in the world, and I believe that this House is one of them. But the danger is that we slide from an anachronism into a museum, with us as the exhibits solely for ornamentation and to be looked at. We have a role in asking Parliament in the form of the other place to think again. We also have a role in making sure, if we can, that the whole of Parliament does not become merely a museum and tourist attraction, with no powers.

325
Many of us here have passionate and very strongly held views, some of which have been expressed today. I have never heard the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, in finer form. We have also heard from my noble friend Lady Thatcher and so many others. I also hold very strong views. What I beg noble Lords to do is for each one to believe that he can be mistaken. There is no guarantee that any of us is right on this issue. Clearly, we cannot all be right.
Suppose for a moment that I and my friends are wrong and that the Maastricht Treaty is the bridge to the sunlit uplands of a happy and prosperous European future. Will my opposition to it matter in years to come? No. If I and others are wrong about the treaty and it goes forward and is successful, we will merely be a little note in the more up-market history books as being among those who opposed this treaty which led to such a good life. But suppose that those who want to take forward this treaty without a referendum are wrong and it turns out badly—it is conceivable that it will—not only for this kingdom but for our partners in Europe. Suppose further that, above all, the people of this kingdom say, "We were never asked or allowed to give our views. All three parties pushed us into it and it has proved a disaster". What would then be the fate of our democracy? Where would the people turn? What would be the consequences for the other place or indeed this House if we shirked our duties, not least because of a false concept that loyalty to party should blind us to loyalty to our nation and our democracy?
9.7 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Blake for his amendment, which has brought us such a historic debate in your Lordships' House tonight on the question of a referendum. Perhaps I may briefly, but with all sincerity, congratulate my noble friend Lord Lawson on his maiden speech. It was very good to hear his wisdom in Parliament again and I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in saying that we look forward to many more clear-sighted speeches from him.
Most of the points made today have been probed in detail during the six days that the House has spent in Committee and on the last two days of Report, with the exception of the referendum, from which we steered ourselves away, largely successfully, until today's debate. I wish to be brief so I want to concentrate my remarks on this specific debate. I cannot answer all the contributions but among the many statements made there was one from my noble friend Lady Thatcher that I must address.
My noble friend said, as she also said at Second Reading, that Maastricht created the structures of a European sovereign state. My Lords, please allow me to repeat the response to that comment of my noble friend which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made in the Second Reading debate. He said of the treaty:
"It is a unique construct … This … union … does not have an international legal personality … Thus it will continue to be the Community … that concludes international agreements …
326
not the Union … Thus it is not true to assert that the Community or the Union have all the attributes of statehood. Their powers are limited and member states retain their own powers in many areas".—[Official Report, 8/6/93; cols. 710-711.]
We have debated this in the past eight days and I believe that the Lord Chancellor's remarks make clear that the concerns of my noble friend Lady Thatcher that through the Maastricht Treaty we shall be creating a European superstate, are really without foundation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made a claim which I know has worried some of your Lordships. That claim was that the text of the Maastricht Treaty was not published before the general election. Perhaps I may say to them and to the House that the first post-Maastricht text was delivered to Parliament on 16th December 1991 and the first post-signature text, tidied up by the lawyers, was delivered to Parliament on 17th February, both those dates being before 9th April 1992. There was, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, during our Committee stage, no question of trying to conceal the treaty or its contents from anyone.
We have also heard that Maastricht was not an election issue. I must say that the Government's determination to place Britain at the heart of Europe could not have been spelt out more clearly in the months before the general election. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made numerous statements to this effect. While the noble Lord. Lord Tebbit, is right on the word "ratification", there is absolutely no doubt, in pages 3 to 5 of the Conservative manifesto, that there was every intention to push forward with the Maastricht Treaty. The manifesto states:
"The Maastricht Treaty was a success both for Britain and for the rest of Europe. British proposals helped to shape the key provisions of the Treaty, including those strengthening the enforcement of Community law, defence, subsidiarity and law and order. But Britain refused to accept the damaging Social Chapter proposed by other Europeans, and it was excluded from the Maastricht treaty".
I do not believe that one could put it in relatively simple language more clearly than that. No one could have been in any doubt where the Conservative Party stood; and that stance was endorsed by the electorate.
We have heard many comments about the referendum and the sovereignty of Parliament. The essence of parliamentary democracy in this country is that Parliament is elected to represent the people and to take decisions on their behalf. I believe that, while there may, under certain circumstances, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell pointed out in his speech and in the pamphlet he wrote in 1978, be a case for referenda, one cannot go down that path on a single issue and after so many months of debate. In fact the debates started in another place on 7th May last year and therefore we have been going for some 14 months on the Bill through every clause and every subsection. The Conservative Party in opposition did not support the case for a referendum in the 1975 referendum debate and we do not support one now.
Perhaps I may come now to other points in general terms in order that I do not detain your Lordships for

327
more than a few moments. Many of your Lordships have argued the constitutional case for a referendum on Maastricht. Despite noble Lords' undoubted wisdom and ingenuity, the Government cannot accept the case. Supporters of a referendum inside this House and many outside it, support it not on principle but through expediency, because they want the treaty to fall. They are prepared to use any and every possible means to stop the treaty being ratified. They have a flag which is called "protecting our way of doing things". They support a measure which runs counter to our parliamentary practice.
First, I believe that supporters of the referendum in this House, while undoubtedly totally sincere, are doubly mistaken. They are mistaken because I believe that they are trying to stop a treaty which is a good treaty for Britain. Secondly, I believe they are mistaken because, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place, they would fail in their purpose. If a referendum were to be held I believe that it would endorse the treaty.
A noble Lord: My Lords, then hold one!
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Government are certainly not opposing a referendum because we are fearful of a negative result, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, implied. Our concern is that the process would set a bad precedent. I believe that the words of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell were very wise in that respect. But I also believe that what my noble friend Lord Whitelaw said at Second Reading is important. He said:
"Our parliamentary procedures, built up over generations, have stood the test of time. I am not in any way afraid of changes but I dislike intensely the idea of changing the procedures on a short-term opportune basis".—[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 728.]
The UK is a parliamentary democracy and all the stronger for that. Those who have spoken eloquently in this debate in favour of a referendum have rested their case on the argument that a referendum is justified exceptionally because the Maastricht Treaty introduces a fundamental change. Opponents of the treaty have, in their public comments, given that impression, portraying the treaty as an unprecedented and irreversible abdication of sovereignty. Some have even argued that it signals the end of parliamentary democracy in this country.
Debates in your Lordships' Chamber and in another place, have demonstrated that the Maastricht Treaty is a move to control what the Community does and thus it is a good one for Britain. Leading constitutional experts such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, have explained why the Maastricht Treaty does not amount to a constitutional innovation. Even my noble friend Lord Beloff tonight agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who went on to say that it is the furthering of a process which has been in train since 1972.
In another place in 1975, and as I well remember, my noble friend Lady Thatcher said that her opponents who advocated a referendum were describing the renegotiation of the terms of Britain's
328
entry into the Community as the most important issue that has faced this country for many years. What they meant, my noble friend said, was that the people must be asked to decide because that government had been incapable of making a decision.
This Government are not incapable of taking a decision. We have encouraged the fullest possible parliamentary scrutiny and debate before going to Maastricht and on our return and ever since. The case for a referendum was debated at length in another place and there was a large majority against it. I am confident that your Lordships' House will arrive at a similar verdict tonight. I urge your Lordships to reject Amendment No. 40.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I promise to be extremely brief. We have had a very long day and I for one do not wish to prolong it. I should like to express my admiration and appreciation of the maiden speech made by my former pupil who is now my noble friend Lord Lawson. I thought that he did very well indeed. I believe that if I were marking him in the examination school I would give him the same high marks that he actually obtained in practice. I am sorry to say to other noble Lords that they were rat her superior—but let that pass.
Despite the eloquent remarks of my noble friend Lady Chalker, I am not in the least inclined to withdraw this amendment. I believe that the opinion of the House should be tested on it. I am not convinced by one or two points that have been made. I believe that all the evidence suggests—whether one thinks it matters or not—that, contrary to what my noble friend Lady Elles said, the public would like to have a referendum. There has been poll after poll on that point. The results have always been consistent, in that about 70 per cent. of the public would like a referendum. The House may feel that the public are wrong to want a referendum, but there is little doubt that, if carried, a referendum amendment would be popular in the country.
Secondly, it is absurd to argue that Maastricht is constitutionally unimportant. I find that argument hard to swallow. My noble friend Lady Thatcher, in what I thought was a brilliant speech—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Blake: —made that point well. She showed the differences that exist between Maastricht and the Single European Act. This is not an idle matter. Maastricht is an important subject constitutionally. For that reason, if your Lordships accept my argument that constitutional matters should, now and then if not regularly, be the subject of a referendum, the case for having one for Maastricht is conclusive. The people have not been consulted about Maastricht. They should be, and I hope that they will be.
I decline also to believe that it is impossible to word a referendum with reasonable clarity. My noble friend Lord Tebbit made that point well. There is a simple "yes" or "no" question to be asked, and he gave art example. That problem is not one that need vex your Lordships.

329
Finally, I refuse also to be put off by the claim that, if carried, the amendment will be rejected instantly by another place. I refuse to accept so low an opinion of the flexibility and liberal-mindedness of another place. I believe that another place would consider it carefully, although it might not change its mind. But unless we pass the amendment, there is no chance of another place considering it. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.
9.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 176; Not-Contents, 445.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Gisborough, L.

Acton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Glenarthur, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glenconner, L.

Annaly, L.

Goodman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Granard, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gray, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Haddington, E.

Bathurst, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Bauer, L.

Hampden, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hardinge, V.

Beloff, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Biddulph, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Blake, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Blyth, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Bradford, E.

Hollick, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brimelow, L.

Huntly, M.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ingleby, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Buchan, E.

Jay, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Jeffreys, L.

Burton, L.

Jeger, B.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Kagan, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Kenilworth, L.

Chilston, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Kindersley, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kintore, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Knutsford, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Leigh, L.

Combermere, V.

Liverpool, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cowdray, V.

Lovelace, E.

Cox, B.

Macclesfield, E.

Craigavon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Mancroft, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Margadale, L.

Cross, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cunliffe, L.

Middleton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Milne, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Mishcon, L.

Derwent, L.

Molloy, L.

Devonshire. D.

Monson, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Moran, L.

Dormer, L.

Morris, L.

Effingham, E.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Erroll. E.

Munster, E.

Essex, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Nelson, E.

Fisher, L.

Northesk, E.

Fitt, L.

Onslow, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Galpern, L.

Parkinson, L.

330

Parry, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Stokes, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Strange, B.

Porritt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Portland, E.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Radnor, E.

Swansea, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Teviot, L.

Rayleigh, L.

Thatcher, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Tombs, L.

Rennell, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Rodney, L.

Torphichen, L.

Romney, E.

Trevethin and Oaksey, L.

Roxburghe, D.

Tryon, L.

St. Germans, E.

Vinson, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wedgwood, L.

Sandys, L.

Westwood, L.

Savile, L.

Whaddon, L.

Scarsdale, V.

Wharton, B.

Sharp of Grimsdyke, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Wise, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Smith, L.

Woolton, E.

Somerset, D.

Wrenbury, L.

Spencer, E.

Yarborough, E.

Spens, L.

Zetland, M.

Stafford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberconway, L.

Bramall, L.

Abercorn, D.

Brentford, V.

Aberdare, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Abinger, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ackner, L.

Briggs, L.

Addington, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Aldenham, L.

Brocket, L.

Aldington, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Alport, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Amery of Lustleigh, L.

Butterfield, L.

Annan, L.

Butterworth, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Byron, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Cadman, L.

Caithness, E.

Ardwick, L.

Camden, M.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ashburton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Astor, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Aylestone, L.

Carrington, L.

Balfour of lnchrye, L.

Carver. L.

Barber, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Cayzer, L.

Barnett, L.

Chalfont, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Bellwin, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Belstead, L.

Chesham, L.

Bessborough, E.

Chichester, Bp.

Bethell, L.

Chilver, L.

Birk, B.

Chorley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clark of Kempston, L

Blatch, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Boardman, L.

Clinton, L.

Bolton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Coleraine, L.

Borthwick, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colwyn, L.

Brain, L.

Congleton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

331

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Cork and Orrery. E.

Greenway, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Gregson, L.

Cowley, E.

Grey, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Gridley. L.

Cranborne, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Grimthorpe, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hacking, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Haig, E.

Crook, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L.

Cudlipp, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Hampton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hamwee, B.

Darnley, E.

Hanworth, V.

Daventry, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

David. B.

Hardwicke, E.

Davidson, V.

Harmsworth, L.

De Freyne, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Harrowby, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hartwell, L.

Deedes, L.

Harvington, L.

Denham. L.

Hayhoe, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Healey, L.

Diamond, L.

Hemphill, L.

Dickinson, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Digby, L.

Henley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Henniker, L.

Donegall, M.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Downshire, M.

Hives, L.

Dudley, E.

Holderness, L.

Dundee, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dunrossil, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Eatwell, L.

Hood, V.

Eccles, V.

Hooper, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Hooson, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Hothfield, L.

Elibank, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Howe, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Elles, B.

Howell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hughes, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Hunt, L.

Elton, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Erne, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ezra, L.

Hylton, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Faithfull, B.

Inchyra, L.

Falkland, V.

Inglewood, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ingrow, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Ironside, L.

Ferrers, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Finsberg, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Flather. B.

Jellicoe, E.

Flowers, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Foley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Foot, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Forbes, L.

Judd, L.

Forte, L.

Kemsley, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Kennet, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Keyes, L.

Gainford, L.

Killearn, L.

Gallacher, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Kimball, L.

Geddes, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Geraint, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Kissin, L.

Glendyne, L.

Kitchener, E.

Goschen. V.

Knollys, V.

Gowrie, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Grade, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Lawrence, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Layton, L.

332

Limerick, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Lindsay, E.

Polwarth, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Portman, V.

Listowel, E.

Prentice, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Prior, L.

Lockwood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Long, V.

Pym, L.

Longford, E.

Quinton, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Raglan, L.

Lothian, M.

Ravensdale. L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Lucas, L.

Reading, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Reay, L.

Lyell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Rees, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Remnant, L.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Renton, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Richard, L

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Richardson, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rochester, L.

McNair, L.

Rockley, L.

Manchester, D.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Manton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Mar, C.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Marchwood, V.

Runcie. L.

Marlborough, D.

Russell, E.

Marlesford, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Sackville, L.

Mayhew, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover L.

Mellish, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

St. Davids, V.

Merrivale, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Mersey, V.

Saint Levan. L

Meston, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mills, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Seccombe, B.

Milverton, L.

Seear, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Selborne, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Serota, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Shannon, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Sharpies, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shaughnessy, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Sherfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Shuttleworlh, L.

Mountevans, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Slim, V.

Moyne, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Moyola, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mulley, L.

Stedman, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Sterling of Plaistow, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Stewartby, L.

Newall, L.

Stockton, E.

Newton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Norfolk, D.

Strafford, E.

Norrie, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Northbourne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Northbrook, L.

Strathcona and Mount Roval, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Ogmore, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Suffield, L.

Palmer, L.

Swinton, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Pender, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Perth, E.

Templeman, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tenby, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Terrington, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Plumb, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

333

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Weinstock, L.

Thurlow, L.

Weir, V.

Tollemache, L.

Westbury, L.

Tordoff, L.

White, B.

Torrington, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Wigoder, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wigram, L.

Ullswater, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Vestey, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Vivian, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Windlesham, L.

Walpole, L.

Wolfson, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Warnock, B.

Wynford, L.

Watkinson, V.

Young, B.

Waverley, V.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Weatherill, L.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 176 names. The Clerks recorded 175 names.
The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 445 names. The Clerks recorded 446 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]

Finance (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.

  NIGERIAN ELECTION: REPRESENTATIONS
  NIGERIAN ELECTION: REPRESENTATIONS
  WORLD BANK: PUBLIC INFORMATION
  WORLD BANK: PUBLIC INFORMATION
  EC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS: SPECIAL INITIATIVE FOR AFRICA
  EC DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS: SPECIAL INITIATIVE FOR AFRICA
  EC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: SPECIAL REHABILITATION SUPPORT PROGRAMME
  EC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL: SPECIAL REHABILITATION SUPPORT PROGRAMME
  EUROPEAN COURT JUDGMENTS AND UK LAW
  EUROPEAN COURT JUDGMENTS AND UK LAW
  RIGHT TO SILENCE AND EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  RIGHT TO SILENCE AND EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION APPEALS ACT 1993
  ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION APPEALS ACT 1993
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
  CRIMINAL JUSTICE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL: SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE: PRIVATISATION OBJECTIVES
  TELECOMMUNICATIONS DIRECTORATE: PRIVATISATION OBJECTIVES
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT HAZARDS: COMPLAINTS TO HSE
  INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT HAZARDS: COMPLAINTS TO HSE
  FOOD ADVISORY BODIES: REMIT
  FOOD ADVISORY BODIES: REMIT